When DO the Government Regulations Become Ridiculous Beyond Belief?

On 6/21/14 3:52 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PeterN wrote:
I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate
false and misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed
that if you drink a frappachino with every meal, adding
whipped cream, as a weight loss product, the FTC would
have no problem enforcing an injunction against such a
claim. If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model
sipping the same Frappachino, and the model had been
Photoshopped to make the image look like she was sipping
the drink, when in fact she never was within a mile of
the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the
ad. Few would consider the image to be artwork. That
image would probably be considered puffery, which is
legal and ethical in most US jurisdictions.

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Food photographs almost never use real food.

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?

They do, but there are folks called "Food Artist" (I kid you not) who have
the makeup, tools and technique to make the product look glamorous. Any good
food shooter uses these people extensively.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 09:28:10 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 6/21/14 3:52 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PeterN wrote:
I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate
false and misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed
that if you drink a frappachino with every meal, adding
whipped cream, as a weight loss product, the FTC would
have no problem enforcing an injunction against such a
claim. If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model
sipping the same Frappachino, and the model had been
Photoshopped to make the image look like she was sipping
the drink, when in fact she never was within a mile of
the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the
ad. Few would consider the image to be artwork. That
image would probably be considered puffery, which is
legal and ethical in most US jurisdictions.

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Food photographs almost never use real food.

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?

They do, but there are folks called "Food Artist" (I kid you not) who have
the makeup, tools and technique to make the product look glamorous. Any good
food shooter uses these people extensively.

That's what I mean. Floyd describes much the same thing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 09:28:10 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 6/21/14 3:52 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?

They do, but there are folks called "Food Artist" (I kid you not) who have
the makeup, tools and technique to make the product look glamorous. Any good
food shooter uses these people extensively.

That's what I mean. Floyd describes much the same thing.

But there is a rather distinct difference. The Food
Stylist for McDonalds makes the product look as
appetizing as possible, regardless of how it will appear
when delivered to a customer.

For example, the ad bun will be larger (customer
packaging causes compression), the hamburger patty is
cooked to avoid shrinkage and improve visual appearance,
and the extras such as pickles, mustard, catchup and so
on are not used in the same amounts or locations for the
photograph.

McDonalds works to make the ad more appealing than the
product they sell.

That is distinct from product advertisers who work to
produce an image that shows the customer what will
actually be delivered.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

RichA wrote:
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:28:10 AM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
They do, but there are folks called "Food Artist" (I kid you not) who have
the makeup, tools and technique to make the product look glamorous. Any good
food shooter uses these people extensively.

And to think, it all started with clear, plastic ice-cubes in booze ads...

Which is not what we are discussing at all. Plastic
ice-cubes in booze allow the photograph to look like the
real thing.

The same can be said for a "salad" that has mostly
mashed potatoes or even sponges under the lettuce.

But when the hamburger image has a bun that is larger,
and a meat patty that is thicker and juicier that
the ones they sell to a customer, it's a bit of a fraud.

The question is not one of how "real" the ingredients
actually are, but of how accurately the photograph
depicts the product as delivered.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 6/20/2014 10:30 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate
false and misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed
that if you drink a frappachino with every meal, adding
whipped cream, as a weight loss product, the FTC would
have no problem enforcing an injunction against such a
claim. If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model
sipping the same Frappachino, and the model had been
Photoshopped to make the image look like she was sipping
the drink, when in fact she never was within a mile of
the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the
ad. Few would consider the image to be artwork. That
image would probably be considered puffery, which is
legal and ethical in most US jurisdictions.

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?


I will discuss this tomorrow with my daughter, who is a marketing
expert. Several of her campaigns have won awards for effectiveness.


--
PeterN

On 6/20/2014 10:30 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate
false and misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed
that if you drink a frappachino with every meal, adding
whipped cream, as a weight loss product, the FTC would
have no problem enforcing an injunction against such a
claim. If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model
sipping the same Frappachino, and the model had been
Photoshopped to make the image look like she was sipping
the drink, when in fact she never was within a mile of
the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the
ad. Few would consider the image to be artwork. That
image would probably be considered puffery, which is
legal and ethical in most US jurisdictions.

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?


How many would Mcdonalds sell if it took hours to sell each one.
Our local diners have a statement that says in effect that: the actual
food may differ from the pictures on the menu.

The Automat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat
was a giant vending machine. The food was kept behind a magnifying
glass, so the portion looked larger than it actually was.

The interiors of cars are routinely shot with a wide angle lens, to make
the car look larger.etc.

--
PeterN

rOn Sat, 21 Jun 2014 17:15:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 09:28:10 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 6/21/14 3:52 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?

They do, but there are folks called "Food Artist" (I kid you not) who have
the makeup, tools and technique to make the product look glamorous. Any good
food shooter uses these people extensively.

That's what I mean. Floyd describes much the same thing.

But there is a rather distinct difference. The Food
Stylist for McDonalds makes the product look as
appetizing as possible, regardless of how it will appear
when delivered to a customer.

For example, the ad bun will be larger (customer
packaging causes compression), the hamburger patty is
cooked to avoid shrinkage and improve visual appearance,
and the extras such as pickles, mustard, catchup and so
on are not used in the same amounts or locations for the
photograph.

McDonalds works to make the ad more appealing than the
product they sell.

That is distinct from product advertisers who work to
produce an image that shows the customer what will
actually be delivered.

My limited observation is that very often the object photographed
bears only a passing resemblance to the object actually sold.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

PeterN wrote:
On 6/20/2014 10:30 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?


How many would Mcdonalds sell if it took hours to sell each one.
Our local diners have a statement that says in effect
that: the actual food may differ from the pictures on
the menu.

And that is all perfectly reasonable because customers are
not being deceived about what it is they are buying.

Incidentally it is perhaps a bit of a fine line on what
"actual food may differ" can mean. It is clearly impossible
to always make each plate the same. But using a generic
"pizza picture" to advertise a specific pizza with say
50% of the toppings that are different from the advertised
image wouldn't be very honest...

But it's very hard to draw a line too.

The Automat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat
was a giant vending machine. The food was kept behind a
magnifying glass, so the portion looked larger than it
actually was.

The interiors of cars are routinely shot with a wide
angle lens, to make the car look larger.etc.

But neither are *false* advertising. It is just showing
the actual product for sale in the way that is most
appealing.

If the Automat showed the customer one food plate but
sold a plate that was smaller or did not have the same
items on it, that wouldn't be honest.

If the car company built a mockup car interior just for
advertising shots, and made the leg room 6 inches extra
and the head room 3 inches extra, it wouldn't be honest.

Preparing a hamburger that is larger and juicier may or
may not be exactly honest. It has the same ingredients
(according to Mcdonalds) but it certainly is not
constructed the same way. They are clearly trying to
*deceive* the customer.

Is that "false advertising"?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 23:30:04 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PeterN wrote:
On 6/20/2014 10:30 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?


How many would Mcdonalds sell if it took hours to sell each one.
Our local diners have a statement that says in effect
that: the actual food may differ from the pictures on
the menu.

And that is all perfectly reasonable because customers are
not being deceived about what it is they are buying.

Incidentally it is perhaps a bit of a fine line on what
"actual food may differ" can mean. It is clearly impossible
to always make each plate the same. But using a generic
"pizza picture" to advertise a specific pizza with say
50% of the toppings that are different from the advertised
image wouldn't be very honest...

But it's very hard to draw a line too.

The Automat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat
was a giant vending machine. The food was kept behind a
magnifying glass, so the portion looked larger than it
actually was.

The interiors of cars are routinely shot with a wide
angle lens, to make the car look larger.etc.

But neither are *false* advertising. It is just showing
the actual product for sale in the way that is most
appealing.

If the Automat showed the customer one food plate but
sold a plate that was smaller or did not have the same
items on it, that wouldn't be honest.

If the car company built a mockup car interior just for
advertising shots, and made the leg room 6 inches extra
and the head room 3 inches extra, it wouldn't be honest.

The British car industry of old got around that problem by using
smaller people. See
http://www.classiccarportraits.co.uk.../Minor_Ad3.jpg

Preparing a hamburger that is larger and juicier may or
may not be exactly honest. It has the same ingredients
(according to Mcdonalds) but it certainly is not
constructed the same way. They are clearly trying to
*deceive* the customer.

Is that "false advertising"?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/22/2014 12:40 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip

While I haven't visited one, I hear that the dating websites sometimes
feature a person that bears only a passing resemblance to the actual
person.



One of my friends, who is a widower, used to frequent those site. He
met someone and they have been happily married for three years.


--
PeterN