Disney World's Only Free Ride

This week’s edition is from Disney World:

What is the horrible fine print in this cute innocent commercial?

No wonder the Rodriquez family is happy and having a good time, they are on a free vacation! Could they not find a family to smile and pose for pictures for free? Have the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana gotten that old in which Disney has to resort to paying people to enjoy their entertainment? At the end of the ad, why bother showing the $1,800 package when a family can get it all for free? I’ll wait in that line instead.

Claritin’s Unclear Claims

This week’s edition is from Claritin:

Here is the fine print:

It’s the only brand clinically tested? A study saying it works better than a placebo without comparing to other brands is not a competitive advantage. Zrytec and every other major allergy medicine obviously have been tested and approved by the FDA. Do they instead mean it’s the only brand that was proven effective in studies? Claritin has the fine print on their website, but do not give any details as to the actual study referenced. Zrytec at least shows this comparison on their website even though their studies are a decade old. Consumers better hope Claritin’s pills clear up their allergies better than their marketing department’s claims.

Brett Favre Wrangles In Two Endorsements at Once

Here is a Wrangler Jeans ad featuring Brett Favre that has been running recently during football:

While this ad campaign has been going on for a couple years, notice the subliminal messaging:

Is the ad about Wrangler jeans or Jeep Wranglers? Did Jeep pay off some prop guy to use their car or did Favre get to keep the Wrangler if he throws near it? More recent versions of the ad include the Target logo, which would make sense if they had a deal with the clothing distributor, but to purposefully place a Jeep and the logo together is just weird. Imagine this Jacksonville Jaguars season tickets commercial with a player driving around in a Jaguar instead of an Audi. Even worse, the Denver Broncos could have an ad touting their star running back driving a white Ford Bronco to the stadium. Wait, what is that car next to Favre in the picture? Oh no, the Juice is loose again!

Thanks to reader Nat Fraser for the idea submission.

Professional Chefs at Taco Bell?

Here is another Taco Bell ad to make this blog:

Despite the flashy ad, there is some fine print to notice:

There are professional chefs working for Taco Bell? I doubt that. Throwing the food in the air and touching the food with bare hands is more believable though.

Does ETrade Baby Their Audience?

Here is a relatively old ad from ETrade that is still airing:

Obviously everybody has seen the baby ads before, but I had not noticed the fine print before:

Does ETrade expect people to think that baby is actually trading stocks online? I do not see fine print when other babies on TV do crazy things, like shoot nuclear power plant owners or attempt world domination. Then why does ETrade worry about getting sued by babies? Oops, too late.

3M Tests the Sticking Power of Their Ads

Here is another ad from Post it Notes:

Notice the familiar fine print?

It’s the same ad as months before, just with a dog! How unimaginative is 3M's creative department that they can only come up with one gag? Did they hope that if it only aired on Animal Planet no one would notice? At least they changed the backgrounds.

Thanks to reader Michael Mills for the idea submission.

State Farm's Falcon Ad is a Paltry Attempt at Humor

State Farm makes their second appearance on the blog with this ad:

Here is the fine print:

This fine print directly debunks what the narrating agent is saying. “Most people who switch” is not the same as “new policyholders who reported savings by switching.” What about the people who did not save? Or the customers who only saved $10 and did not want to fill out the survey? This a clear case of voluntary response bias since the ad already misleads the survey information. In case you were wondering, you can only afford two of the twelve things shown in the commercial. The Viking Horn Helmet ($200) and Genghis Khan Outfit ($150) are within the $480 savings, while the Tuba ($6k), Double Bass ($1,500), Jukebox ($1,500), Segway ($5k), Blue Marlin Mount ($1k), Cockatoo ($1k), Model T Go Cart ($2k), Moose Head Mount ($4k), Giant Gumball Machine ($1,700) and Saddle ($500) are not. Even a falconry license cost $300 itself plus equipment and training. Hopefully my bill goes to my insurance policy and not their research team.

Degree Sweats it for Bear Grylls

This week’s edition is from Degree:

There are two fine prints that pop out besides the obvious do not attempt:

While this one is similar to the earlier shark post since the product is tested in absurd displays, the focus this week is not on possible rigging or clever editing. What exactly is SWR? Sweat Wetness Reduction? Sweat Retention? Single White Repulsion? Bonus points if you can find it, since it’s not listed anywhere. What is it being compared to? A regular Degree stick? The FDA minimum? Who is the average Degree user? If you’re still confused, don’t worry since Bear Grylls repeats the same shtick with wolverines and for Trail Mix and Nissan.

Thanks to reader Erryn Gallasch for the idea submission.

Turn the Hose off of Verizon's New Fake Emergency Ad

This week’s edition is another ad from Verizon:

There are two fine prints to notice in this one:

They say it is a test in the beginning of the ad, there’s no reason for the fine print. Who would really think it is an actual emergency? What would you do/call if you thought it was? My bigger concern is the “do not attempt” on the firehouse gag. The guy just stands there and is smiling as he gets wet. “Do not attempt” does not cover the blatant misleading portrayal of a fire hose in this ad. You do not see smiling or high-fiving among the riot police in this training video.

Something Fishy About Gillette's New Ad

This week’s edition is from Gillette:

The fine print was in the beginning and hard to see:

They chummed the water! No wonder the sharks swarmed to the nicks of the shaver. In fact, they never actually show the sharks going after one cage over the other, which is just clever editing. Now if they were able to get a close shave while chumming this water, and hiding in this cage, I would be impressed. Oddly enough, they compare this razor to their own “leading disposable,” instead of against a competitor like Schick. Maybe Gillette was scared of the FTC and wanted to avoid losing their title of the official razor of Shark Week.

AllState’s Ad for All States?

Here is an ad in a recent series from AllState:

While there is a lot of fine print, I noticed the one in caps:

AllState does not cover all states? I’ve never seen a fine print that directly contradicts the company’s own name. I cannot imagine GEICO caveman ads stating their policy is not available for certain government employees or New York Life not being applicable in Brooklyn.

However, sometimes even a fine print critique needs some fine print. Technically the fine print in the ad refers to the specific deductable deal, which depends on each state’s individual laws. Additionally, Allstate’s insurance does cover each state, and the origin of their name comes from a competition to name Sears’ tire division. Even so, they could have written the fine print differently to not include a part of their company’s name, like “participation varies by location” or “option dependant on local laws.”

A Problem With Lexus's Future Ads

This week’s fine print comes from Lexus:

The fine print to notice is not the “do not attempt” or “drive in a safe manner,” but:

At first glance this looks like a car commercial, but in fact, the car is not even real yet. They are actually advertising their simulator and concept vehicle LF-GH. While they are not claiming the LF-GH or any specific car will have the new reaction feature, they are misleading the viewers by association. Watch next week Mercedes comes out with an ad featuring future plans to add a flux capacitor to their new concept hovercraft or new engines on the long-awaited jet pack. Imagine touting to your boss on how great the new features on future TPS reports will be, or turning in a “concept paper” to your professor. Good luck getting away with that.

Thanks to reader Erryn Gallasch for the idea submission.

Do Not Attempt to Mimic Magnum Ice Cream and Ace Hardware

This week’s edition is a double feature, first from Ace Hardware:

Then from Magnum Ice Cream:

Notice the fine print on both?:

We shouldn’t walk on top of cars? Unfortunately, there is a time honored tradition in movies of this action. Whether it is tracking aliens, watching horse races, shooting aliens, or robbing cars, everyone seems to turn out fine. Oh, wait; maybe it’s a bad idea after all.

Thanks for reader David Marrin for the idea submission.

Ancestry.com and Vonage, Fortune and Fame

Here is an ad I saw for Ancestry.com:

The fine print on this one might be hard to read:

“Actor Portrayal”

While plenty of commercials use actors and actresses, you rarely see fine print about it. I guess Ancestry.com felt obligated since they were making claims and faked details. My question is why do they need to pay actors in the first place? Is their product not good enough where they can find a real person who found cool genealogy stuff on their website? Why don’t they just use actual customers like in the Vonage ad below:

And the bonus fine print:

Apparently I missed the memo about being able to appear on TV hocking your favorite stuff. I’m sure the offer for my testimonial for Skittles and Five Guys got lost in the mail or something.

Is it Jeep or Jip Wrangler?

Here is another car ad that makes an appearance on this blog:

This fine print is a long one:

What’s the point of showing all these cool stunts the car can do, when it cannot even do it? How lame has Jeep become that crossing a puddle is not covered by the warranty? It can only cross 20 inches of water? That’s good to know so next time I’m getting chased by aliens/zombies/dinosaurs through the swamp I’ll make sure to bring my yard stick and measure before crossing.

This week’s edition comes with a bonus fine print. Lenny Kravitz is obviously not driving through that water and is not the professional driver. They had to make sure the Jeep was extra clean for his fancy leather outfit.

Thanks to reader Sarah Stone for the idea submission.

Do Not Lose Your “Focus” While Driving This Ford

Here is a cute ad for a Ford Focus:

The fine print is kind of hard to read over the busy dashboard:

I think I would pass on a new feature that needs three sentences of warnings. If it is that dangerous, why bother using it? I am more concerned with the last sentence about the car locking features out while driving. When this happens, the driver would just use their phone anyway, defeating the purpose of this fancy feature. I can just imagine a new driver trying to figure why their MyFordTouch isn’t working, then wham! My Ford Taurus gets rear-ended.

Thanks to reader Erryn Gallasch for the idea submission.

Crayola Putting Customers in the Dark Again

Here is another Crayola ad I noticed:

Once again there are two fine prints:

Crayola again? Do they even make any quality products that do not need multiple warnings? If the “Glow is recreated” then how do you know it even works? While “Time lapse” is a common tactic, if I was still a kid I would be upset if I had to wait a while for this to work then have it not be as bright as the commercial. Both these ads seem to have been produced recently, so maybe Crayola is desperate to find new products after running out of crayon colors to invent.

Taking Fidelity on One on One

Here is a spot from Fidelity that was constantly airing earlier during March Madness:

The fine print is kind of small and long:

It’s merely educational, not individualized, and not intended to use significantly in decision making? Then what’s the point of even meeting with them? What are they offering that’s not on their website, besides someone to read their brochure on investing to you out loud? Imagine seeing an ad for a lawyer saying that their consultation should not be used in court or a doctor warning that they’ll just give you the same diagnosis they give every other patient. They have generic fine print later in the spot about the risk of loss in investing, which covers them from people losing money after taking their advice. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Fidelity customer already, but the earlier fine print warning is just weird.