looking at the ad copy and turning it over and over again in their mind.
The copy read, "The best fitness planfor you real fruit, honest juice and no sugar. This was the main copy line.
The more Ritu joshi repeated thisEND OF SECTION AExamination Paper of Corporate GovernanceIIBM Institute of Business Management 3line in her mind the uneasier she became.
Something is wrong in the copy, she said to Rohit jain, the marketing head. We cannot say best for health when we know for sure that the juice contain preservatives and food color.
Rohit jain said, I don?t see if anything is wrong in this. With food colors and preservatives added we couldn? t say it is best. This is what is wrong m replied Ritu. Rohit said, but this is hyperbole and permitted by law. There is nothing wrong in saying this. Have you not almost noticed all detergent brands say for best wash or whitest wash? This is simply a way of putting your claim of brand?s superiority.
We are not talking about detergent washes and fabrics it is a health and fitnessfruit juice. We could not say something like?, a great way to plan your fitness programme? or something like that. We are saying real fruit, honest juice, and no sugar? ... not a word about food color and preservatives?.Any consumer can contest our claim.
"Rohit Jain though for a moment then said, "let us get the legal opinion from our lawyer, Amit soni, to be onthe safe guard.Amit listened to what Ritu had to say then said, "Companies use advertising to provide information toconsumers and offer alternatives in a competitive market situation. Advertising is false when it says A=Band that is not true. But the ad is misleading; it falls under the category of unfair trade practice." Loudlyreading the ad copy, Amit said?" hyperbole such as best, newest most effective way, are permissible andconsumers are unlikely to take such claims with ant seriousness.
When a brand says its air-conditioner is bestor most efficient, consumers know that this is just a manner of speech and do not truly believe and put theirmoney on such claims."Yes, Real juice passes the legal test fine, but ethically it won?t be correct," said Ritu joshi.
"Please understand. Here you are not making a claim," said Amit soni.Amit soni said," comparative advertising is healthy but the advertiser must be clear about the claims to bemade. In this case, you are saying that Teal juice is good because it comes in cans and bottled drinks are notas good. This is a direct attack on bottled drinks. Advertiser does not disclose all the parameters they haveconsidered in their conclusion of „best?. They may select some major ones or may cheese to highlight thetrivial ones and ignore the major ones. These things happen every day and are not strictly provided under the law. There must be prima facie evidence of damage or misrepresentation to establish a case of unfair trade practice." "so, we are legally safe," said Rohit jain. "We will reword this campaign, but our other campaignshave passed to muster."Ritu joshi felt differently, she said, "legally we may safe, but we have to also take an ethical view."We must not forget that our primary platform is health and fitness. This convenience angle is also cratingand impression of „good for health?.
I believe that as responsible advertisers, we have to be more concernedabout the ethical aspects than merely the legal angle. This is where we come to the line between what is legaland what is ethical. We may be legally right but our act could be unethical if the word or pictures in the adcould lead the consumer to believe something that is not true. The aura of the fitness instructor used asendorser creates an impression that the information is coming to consumers from an environment wherethere are people whose opinion consumer?s view as being correct. Otherwise why use the instructor asendorser."
Question:
1. Analyze the issues in the case.
2. Why should advertiser bother about ethics if the ads measure up to legal parameters.