When DO the Government Regulations Become Ridiculous Beyond Belief?

On 6/22/2014 3:30 AM, 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.

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"?


I don't think so. The actual hamburgers are not constructed by
trained chefs. As much as they try to automate the process, the final
assembly is still done by humans, who mostly earn minimum wage.
Consequently there is a distinct lack of consistency in preparation.
I personally doubt if many McDonalds customers have a realistic
expectation of their hamburger looking like the image shown in the ad.
However I will ask my daughter today.


--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
On 6/22/2014 3:30 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Is that "false advertising"?


I don't think so. The actual hamburgers are not constructed by
trained chefs. As much as they try to automate the
process, the final assembly is still done by humans, who
mostly earn minimum wage. Consequently there is a
distinct lack of consistency in preparation.

Actually they are very well trained (not as a chef
though), and the product from McDonalds is very
consistent.

In particular it is consistent in not being the same as
what they advertise. There is virtually no possibility
that any hamburger served to a customer at any McDonalds
in the entire world is ever going to look similiar to
the ones they photograph for advertisements. In the US
and probably many other countries it would be a
violation of health laws! That nice thick juicy looking
patty of beef is raw on the inside... (They even carefully
cook the edges to retain the shape to make the thickness
visible in the photograph.)

I personally doubt if many McDonalds customers have a
realistic expectation of their hamburger looking like
the image shown in the ad.

Isn't that exactly the problem? "False advertising"
that is well known to be false doesn't mean it isn't
false.

However I will ask my daughter today.

Her thoughts should be interesting. I'm sure that those
who work in the business have a very keen sense of what
is and is not acceptable. The only problem is that it
may well be different for food, jewelery, cars,
clothing, medicine, cosmetics etc etc. But she will
likely have some good insight into exactly that!

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

On 6/21/14 7:04 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:28:10 AM UTC-4, 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.

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

Hey, it worked!

And those were the days of "hot" lights. Studio strobes hadn't been invented
yet.

On 6/21/14 8:15 PM, in article , "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.

If that happened, maybe there would be less obese folks in this Country
maybe?

On 6/21/14 9:53 PM, in article ,
"Tony Cooper" wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 21:56:47 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

Good Lord, Peter. nospam and Floyd are here. Why do you need real
experts?

Don't mention "puffery" to Floyd.

BFG!

On 6/22/14 4:59 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

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

Like Shaq O'Neil in the Ford all scrunched up. That's a laffer!!

On 6/22/2014 9:29 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 6/22/2014 3:30 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Is that "false advertising"?


I don't think so. The actual hamburgers are not constructed by
trained chefs. As much as they try to automate the
process, the final assembly is still done by humans, who
mostly earn minimum wage. Consequently there is a
distinct lack of consistency in preparation.

Actually they are very well trained (not as a chef
though), and the product from McDonalds is very
consistent.

In particular it is consistent in not being the same as
what they advertise. There is virtually no possibility
that any hamburger served to a customer at any McDonalds
in the entire world is ever going to look similiar to
the ones they photograph for advertisements. In the US
and probably many other countries it would be a
violation of health laws! That nice thick juicy looking
patty of beef is raw on the inside... (They even carefully
cook the edges to retain the shape to make the thickness
visible in the photograph.)

I personally doubt if many McDonalds customers have a
realistic expectation of their hamburger looking like
the image shown in the ad.

Isn't that exactly the problem? "False advertising"
that is well known to be false doesn't mean it isn't
false.

However I will ask my daughter today.

Her thoughts should be interesting. I'm sure that those
who work in the business have a very keen sense of what
is and is not acceptable. The only problem is that it
may well be different for food, jewelery, cars,
clothing, medicine, cosmetics etc etc. But she will
likely have some good insight into exactly that!


We discussed the ad in generic terms. Her opinion was short and pithy:

Unless such ads have a disclaimer, they are unethical. She would not
give an opinion as to legality. Such ads may work for a short period of
time, but if enough of the public feels deceived, it could damage the
brand name.

I will not get into her comments on the psychology of such ads. However,
she did say: "I don't think you would expect to get a burger that looks
like the one in the picture."


--
PeterN

On 2014-06-23 09:29:20 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Sunday, 22 June 2014 01:03:51 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:13:18 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-21 03:38:42 +0000, RichA said:
On Friday, June 20, 2014 5:34:50 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:

The FTC wants to regulate the use of Photoshop...

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/nationa...uld-let-ftc-re
gulate-12485185/

Liberals. Never met a law, restriction, ban, they didn't like, unless
it restricted the use of recreational drugs.

So, how is Mayor Ford doing lately?

How is ALL of Colorado (liberals) doing lately? BTW, 2x as many people
in the U.S. drive stoned now as opposed to drunk. Was that an
improvement?

Wouldn't that depend on the number of accidents and the seriousness of
those accidents. We have problems in this country with drink assiociate
violence not much appear those being stoned causing trouble.
Could also compare the number of people killed due to someone being
stoned and those killed (illegally) by guns ;-)

Yes and I've seen the southpark episodes set in Colorado .

Blame Canada!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

PeterN wrote:
On 6/22/2014 9:29 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 6/22/2014 3:30 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Is that "false advertising"?


I don't think so. The actual hamburgers are not constructed by
trained chefs. As much as they try to automate the
process, the final assembly is still done by humans, who
mostly earn minimum wage. Consequently there is a
distinct lack of consistency in preparation.

Actually they are very well trained (not as a chef
though), and the product from McDonalds is very
consistent.

In particular it is consistent in not being the same as
what they advertise. There is virtually no possibility
that any hamburger served to a customer at any McDonalds
in the entire world is ever going to look similiar to
the ones they photograph for advertisements. In the US
and probably many other countries it would be a
violation of health laws! That nice thick juicy looking
patty of beef is raw on the inside... (They even carefully
cook the edges to retain the shape to make the thickness
visible in the photograph.)

I personally doubt if many McDonalds customers have a
realistic expectation of their hamburger looking like
the image shown in the ad.

Isn't that exactly the problem? "False advertising"
that is well known to be false doesn't mean it isn't
false.

However I will ask my daughter today.

Her thoughts should be interesting. I'm sure that those
who work in the business have a very keen sense of what
is and is not acceptable. The only problem is that it
may well be different for food, jewelery, cars,
clothing, medicine, cosmetics etc etc. But she will
likely have some good insight into exactly that!


We discussed the ad in generic terms. Her opinion was short and pithy:

Unless such ads have a disclaimer, they are
unethical. She would not give an opinion as to
legality. Such ads may work for a short period of time,
but if enough of the public feels deceived, it could
damage the brand name.

I will not get into her comments on the psychology of
such ads. However, she did say: "I don't think you would
expect to get a burger that looks like the one in the
picture."

Astute daughter.

I think though that not expecting a McDonalds hamburger
to look like the picture is a conditioned response.

People who experience both the McDonalds advertising and
their product very quickly learn the distinction.
However, for those who are new to the product or have
very little exposure (virtually everyone where I live),
there is no conditioning. They expect to get what they
see on the TV advertisements.

That actually catches people here quite often, in an odd
way that wouldn't be possible for most people. Very
commonly at local events where venders sell food there
will be at least one that orders hamburgers from a
McDonalds in Anchorage, which are delivered by air. The
burgers are re-heated prior to sale.

Folks expecting a hamburger like the ones on TV get a
surprise.

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

On 6/24/2014 2:07 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 6/22/2014 9:29 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 6/22/2014 3:30 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Is that "false advertising"?


I don't think so. The actual hamburgers are not constructed by
trained chefs. As much as they try to automate the
process, the final assembly is still done by humans, who
mostly earn minimum wage. Consequently there is a
distinct lack of consistency in preparation.

Actually they are very well trained (not as a chef
though), and the product from McDonalds is very
consistent.

In particular it is consistent in not being the same as
what they advertise. There is virtually no possibility
that any hamburger served to a customer at any McDonalds
in the entire world is ever going to look similiar to
the ones they photograph for advertisements. In the US
and probably many other countries it would be a
violation of health laws! That nice thick juicy looking
patty of beef is raw on the inside... (They even carefully
cook the edges to retain the shape to make the thickness
visible in the photograph.)

I personally doubt if many McDonalds customers have a
realistic expectation of their hamburger looking like
the image shown in the ad.

Isn't that exactly the problem? "False advertising"
that is well known to be false doesn't mean it isn't
false.

However I will ask my daughter today.

Her thoughts should be interesting. I'm sure that those
who work in the business have a very keen sense of what
is and is not acceptable. The only problem is that it
may well be different for food, jewelery, cars,
clothing, medicine, cosmetics etc etc. But she will
likely have some good insight into exactly that!


We discussed the ad in generic terms. Her opinion was short and pithy:

Unless such ads have a disclaimer, they are
unethical. She would not give an opinion as to
legality. Such ads may work for a short period of time,
but if enough of the public feels deceived, it could
damage the brand name.

I will not get into her comments on the psychology of
such ads. However, she did say: "I don't think you would
expect to get a burger that looks like the one in the
picture."

Astute daughter.


Thank you. She is one of the few people I know who really enjoys her
work. She has stated many times the she is doing what she has wanted to
do since she was a teenager. She has turned down job offers in excess of
50% increases in pay.


I think though that not expecting a McDonalds hamburger
to look like the picture is a conditioned response.

People who experience both the McDonalds advertising and
their product very quickly learn the distinction.
However, for those who are new to the product or have
very little exposure (virtually everyone where I live),
there is no conditioning. They expect to get what they
see on the TV advertisements.

That actually catches people here quite often, in an odd
way that wouldn't be possible for most people. Very
commonly at local events where venders sell food there
will be at least one that orders hamburgers from a
McDonalds in Anchorage, which are delivered by air. The
burgers are re-heated prior to sale.

Folks expecting a hamburger like the ones on TV get a
surprise.



--
PeterN