Euro Car Parts - misleading advertising?
Comments
-
Clearly every part for every car is a factual claim that has to be justified. Red Bull Gives You Wings is clearly advertising puffery that any reasonable person would recognise as such, and for historical reasons it has been decided that advertising fluff is OK as long as people can clearly recognise it as such.Did you complain about RedBull as well?
It's not that hard to grasp the concepts that ASA are enforcing, and I don't see that MSE forum members should be seeking to redefine advertising law just because they can't grasp that misleading advertising harms everyone.
https://www.asa.org.uk/news/the-facts-about-opinions-in-advertising.html0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »Clearly every part for every car is a factual claim that has to be justified. Red Bull Gives You Wings is clearly advertising puffery that any reasonable person would recognise as such, and for historical reasons it has been decided that advertising fluff is OK as long as people can clearly recognise it as such.
It's not that hard to grasp the concepts that ASA are enforcing, and I don't see that MSE forum members should be seeking to redefine advertising law just because they can't grasp that misleading advertising harms everyone.
https://www.asa.org.uk/news/the-facts-about-opinions-in-advertising.html
"Any part for any car" is just as much fluff.
Does any reasonable person expect ECP to stock every part for every car ever made? Like a rubber suspension grommet for a Model T Ford? How about a window winder for a 1956 Gaz M21? Or a headlamp for a 1930 Austin 7?
Any person who believes that "any part for any car" is in anyway different from "gives you wings" is being an idiot...====0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »Clearly every part for every car is a factual claim that has to be justified. Red Bull Gives You Wings is clearly advertising puffery that any reasonable person would recognise as such, and for historical reasons it has been decided that advertising fluff is OK as long as people can clearly recognise it as such.
It's not that hard to grasp the concepts that ASA are enforcing, and I don't see that MSE forum members should be seeking to redefine advertising law just because they can't grasp that misleading advertising harms everyone.
https://www.asa.org.uk/news/the-facts-about-opinions-in-advertising.html
And yet they didnt bother doing anything about it for you.....
Does that not tell you something?0 -
The RedBull "Give's you wings" slogan is not a very good example for this thread considering the lawsuit they settled on in the US.0
-
The RedBull "Give's you wings" slogan is not a very good example for this thread considering the lawsuit they settled on in the US.
I didn't know US law or court decisions had any authority or relevance in the UK...
Edit
And a quick read shows the court case was not actually about the slogan. It's about the inadequacies as a energy drink.The false ad lawsuit all started in 2013 by a US consumer, Benjamin Careathers, who believed the company's slogan "Red Bull gives you wings" is dishonest.
He argued the slogan clearly doesn't mean the drink will give you wings but it is generally understood the drink should give a higher energy boost than an average cup of coffee.
But when Careathers found Red Bull had less caffeine than a cup of coffee, he felt there were grounds for a lawsuit.
According to the Red Bull website, One 250ml (8.4 oz) can of Red Bull Energy Drink contains about the same amount of caffeine as a cup of coffee, which is about 80mg.
At hearing a back in August, a judge agreed with him: "Such deceptive conduct and practices mean that [Red Bull's] advertising and marketing is not just 'puffery,' but it instead deceptive and fraudulent and it therefore actionable," the lawsuit stated.
"Even though there is a lack of genuine scientific support for a claim that Red Bull branded energy drinks provide any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee, the Red Bull defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of 'energy' worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine," it continued.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/29550003/so-red-bull-doesnt-actually-give-you-wings====0 -
Any person who believes that "any part for any car" is in anyway different from "gives you wings" is being an idiot...
Not really (and I think ASA would disagree with being considered idiots for distinguishing the two cases). It simply suggests to me that they have contacts in the supply chain and that they can source any part that can be sourced with a phone call. That is not an unreasonable expectation, is it? After all, step back, they are making a claim that entices people to treat them as a one stop shop for all possible car parts. Red Bull's slogan doesn't really make any claim aside from alluding to well-being but generally it was used in the context of fantastical animations - and the ASA specifically use that as their justification for not upholding Red Bull complaints (aside from I think they unreasonably get away with avoiding the suggestion that what it actually gives you is a thumping headache and palpitations).
What we are talking about here is that someone has a reasonably common mass market car and they don't bother even with that, so we are not talking about edge cases here, they are not even close to their claim.
FWIW, I wasn't the one who complained to the ASA about this before (though I've made a number of complaints in my time and been considered correct each time).0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »Not really (and I think ASA would disagree with being considered idiots for distinguishing the two cases). It simply suggests to me that they have contacts in the supply chain and that they can source any part that can be sourced with a phone call. That is not an unreasonable expectation, is it? After all, step back, they are making a claim that entices people to treat them as a one stop shop for all possible car parts. Red Bull's slogan doesn't really make any claim aside from alluding to well-being but generally it was used in the context of fantastical animations - and the ASA specifically use that as their justification for not upholding Red Bull complaints (aside from I think they unreasonably get away with avoiding the suggestion that what it actually gives you is a thumping headache and palpitations).
What we are talking about here is that someone has a reasonably common mass market car and they don't bother even with that, so we are not talking about edge cases here, they are not even close to their claim.
FWIW, I wasn't the one who complained to the ASA about this before (though I've made a number of complaints in my time and been considered correct each time).
So you do expect them to stock or source Model T spares, 1950's Soviet cars and pre-war cars?
So every single part, screw, rubber washer and grommet for EVERY MAKE AND MODEL car ever made?
:rotfl:====0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »
Clearly every part for every car is a factual claim that has to be justified.
Its a slogan / tag line. Easily remembered. Thats all.
Its banal to think that they really mean every single part for every car made ever - and then to complain to the ASA about it... :eek:0 -
I think a reasonable person would expect them to be able to source current parts for current cars, although they really shouldn't be making a claim that they will get any part for any car - after all it is not unreasonable to think that there are parts brokers around who will seek to source a spare for a Model T - after all where do all those Model T owners (or Hillman Minx or whoever) get their parts from?So you do expect them to stock or source Model T spares, 1950's Soviet cars and pre-war cars?
So every single part, screw, rubber washer and grommet for EVERY MAKE AND MODEL car ever made?
:rotfl:
Simply put, don't make a claim you aren't prepared to back up.
Put another way, I bet there is someone out there who would claim to be able to genuinely get any part for any car, including getting one machined. There are plenty of classic car specialists around. That's why I think it is an unreasonable claim for a parts business to make.0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »I think a reasonable person would expect them to be able to source current parts for current cars, although they really shouldn't be making a claim that they will get any part for any car - after all it is not unreasonable to think that there are parts brokers around who will seek to source a spare for a Model T - after all where do all those Model T owners (or Hillman Minx or whoever) get their parts from?
Simply put, don't make a claim you aren't prepared to back up.
Put another way, I bet there is someone out there who would claim to be able to genuinely get any part for any car, including getting one machined. There are plenty of classic car specialists around. That's why I think it is an unreasonable claim for a parts business to make.
Realistically,they could easily back up the claim if pushed into it.
Widget for X marque. Call dealers,get price and add mark up.
however even then,what if the dealers no longer stock the part?
Or the likes of Saab which are still relatively modern but some parts are getting thin on the ground.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards