It might not be the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard today, but it certainly got me thinking about the rubbish that advertisers are able to get away with.

Everyone seems to claim that they’re the best or cheapest or any other superlative that one can think of in relation to their product. However there can only be one number one so how does that work…?

How about those “if you find cheaper we’ll match/beat it” type claims? That implies the store has the best prices, but not always. They only mean that if you can be arsed going somewhere else, then coming back again with proof that the other place has a better price, then they’ll match it, or if you’re lucky they’ll beat it by a small fraction which in most cases wouldn’t be worth the petrol and effort it took for you to return. Yet they are allowed to make these claims to consumers who would assume they’re getting the best deal – is that not deceptive? How much of an advertisement can we believe nowadays?

There is a certain assumption that advertisements are not to be taken seriously if it’s obvious that their claims are just for effect. I suppose Lynx relies on this defence as you shouldn’t expect women to flock to any man just because he’s wearing Lynx. But if you take that imagery away from their ads then you’re effectively left with nothing. Come to think of it, most ads are like this.

Take away the claims that are only for effect, and most products would be seen as “same-same but different”. It’s the fact that most things are made “equal but some are more equal than others” – depending on how much they can trash-talk their products I suppose.

Finally some honest advertising

Thanks to Kate for letting me know, the article has just been put on the New Zealand Herald website. The Log On To Motherhood article online doesn’t have all the pictures so I’ve left the thumbnails on this page so you can see what the printed version was like.

Original post:

Ok, for those who could not get the Weekend Herald newspaper, here is the  article that I mentioned in a previous post. Doesn’t look like it’s going to be on the New Zealand Herald website so this is the only way I can share it with you.

I’ve gone old school and taken photos of the pages, but until the hubby or someone else can scan it in for me, this is the best I can do (as we don’t have a scanner at home).

They managed to get my name wrong in the pull quote on page 4 – whoops. And another typo, if you want to visit Bridget’s blog it’s at widgetlucy.blogspot.com and not at blogpost.com!

Page one 3.6 MB JPG

“

Page two 3.5 MB JPG

Page three 2.8 MB JPG

Page four 2.7 MB JPG