Consumer law allows the less well informed to be ripped off!

ThumbRemote

cepheus wrote: »

It doesn't settle it at all. If anything it makes it worse. All they are saying is that the average of one targeted group is different to another. Moreover, one definition here assumes consumers are relatively well informed which is hardly the case! Much better if they assume consumers are NOT well informed because this represents the truth as we clearly saw with bank miselling.

Why don't you reference the article?

Look, here's a relevant case study. "Shreddies - Knitted by Nanas" was an advertising campaign a while back (may still be).

If the 'average' term was taken out of the CPfUTR legislation, this would be illegal as being a misleading action, specifically under the term "geographical or commercial origin of the product".

Yet clearly no-one sane is going to buy Shreddies because they believe this to be literally true. The average person, the normal man in the street, the man on the Clapham omnibus, they would all know it's not true, it's a bit of fun.

Yet you seem to be upset that this isn't illegal. Why?

shaun_from_Africa

Do you mean to say that this isn't really how John West obtain their salmon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvIamfRRKK0

cepheus

This thread is getting rather ridiculous, everyone knows that it is not just the bottom 50% of consumers who are manipulated but virtually all of us to some extent. Look no further than the banking scandals where I would guess the rate is 80-90%.

In fact I would be very surprised if everyone hasn't been manipulated to some extent. Everything in marketing and advertising is manipulative and large amounts of money are spent on this. If it didn't work the shareholders should be furious for this waste of resources.

The point is we accept a degree of manipulation, some more than others. I have a low tolerance since manipulation is parasitic, in all forms it degrades society. It is also very financially beneficial for the manipulator and tougher regulation and fines are essential. Education won't make a scrap of difference, because the manipulators will raise the bar.

Cornucopia

But does manipulation necessarily lead to being ripped-off?

And do attempts to manipulate actually succeed?

I really don't care about advertising - it goes in one ear and out the other. I'd always assumed that not only were most people the same but that it was an issue of common sense, not of intelligence.

Advertising is a complex thing. Seeing the wintry Heinz soup ads might make me think of buying some soup. But when I do, it'll inevitably be Aldi soup, which I already know tastes the same.

mo786uk

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

All this aside all the op seems to be going about is the fact they don't like that it falls down to the average consumer. With the deception issue how would things have to be worded for someone of extremely low intelligence to understand something? Massive 1 ft high letters? But then things would be needed to be explained so clearly desciptions of things would end up going on for ever so that wouldn't work. You'd then have the problem of the massive can of worms it would open up to con artists who could then legally rip off business's through theft or fraud left right and centre. Hasn't it occured to the op that it's done that way because there is no sensible other way of doing things as I have explained above.

What does the op actually want it doesn't seem very clear & secondly, ripped off how? Surely if someone buys something and it goes wrong they might enquire by asking friends etc about what they think, surely they'd come across someone "above" average sooner or later.

The average consumer concept tries to set a bar and it indeed does mean some people would not be protected.

A judge said the law '[FONT=&quot]exists to protect from being misled consumers who take reasonable care of themselves, rather than the ignorant, the careless or the over-hasty consumer'

The average eprson in the UK may well not fit in with the aervage consuemr - we tend to be hasty and not read things properly - hence many things we might think take advantage of this would not breach the law.

As you suggest if the bar was lowered then it would mean more and more things would breach the law.

You have to set the standard somewhere and peopel will take a different view. My view is that thea verage consumer probably sets the bar a bit to high - but that doesnt mean the law should try and protect every idiot from every scenario.
[/FONT]

Money-Saving-King

cepheus wrote: »

This thread is getting rather ridiculous, everyone knows that it is not just the bottom 50% of consumers who are manipulated but virtually all of us to some extent. Look no further than the banking scandals where I would guess the rate is 80-90%.

In fact I would be very surprised if everyone hasn't been manipulated to some extent. Everything in marketing and advertising is manipulative and large amounts of money are spent on this. If it didn't work the shareholders should be furious for this waste of resources.

The point is we accept a degree of manipulation, some more than others. I have a low tolerance since manipulation is parasitic, in all forms it degrades society. It is also very financially beneficial for the manipulator and tougher regulation and fines are essential. Education won't make a scrap of difference, because the manipulators will raise the bar.

What you write just seems obesssionate. Is it based on jealousy of others having more money than you? There's very little rational reason in what you write like I said it just seems to be some thing that you can't seem to let go of.

If you had your way the world would just cease to funtion normally because nothing would be allowed incase someone gets very slightly upset about it thinking that some how someones been manipulated!