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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
