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.

1-800 Contacts’ Extra Extra Campaign

Here is a quick ad from 1-800 Contacts:

The fine print was early on:

This is an example of excessive use of explicit fine print. You do not need an expert to expand or expose the fact that 1-800 Contacts did not need to use the extraneous disclaimer to expel an exhausting lawsuit. However, I did not expect them to exploit this fine print as their new expensive ad campaign.

Thanks to reader Erryn Gallasch for the idea submission.

Crayola Bursting Kids' and Parents' Bubbles

Here is a new ad for Crayola’s Colored Bubble Launcher:

Looks fun, but there were two fine prints on this one:

Is there anything they say in this ad that is actually true? The FTC rules against false advertising especially to children, as explained in these two official releases. While Crayola is obviously aware of these laws, maybe they should improve their product instead of littering their spot with more fine print than a Viagra ad. While their intention is to get a kid to see the ad and want it, a wise parent purchasing it would see the fine print or read reviews. Too bad the Wall Street Journal already points this out while out-scooping me.

Thanks to reader Sarah Stone for the idea submission.

In Toyota Highlanders, There Can Only Be One…

Here is a new ad for Toyota’s Highlander:

Instead of cringing at the singing I noticed the fine print:

Technically they never show a driver wearing headphones, so they might not need the disclaimer. I would think it was common sense not to wear your iPod while driving, but I have seen motorists wearing them on the road. While it is illegal to wear headphones while driving in Virginia, interestingly enough, it is legal to wear it in just one ear. Maybe the disclaimer should be that only curly haired kids are allowed in Toyota commercials.

When Verizon Thunderbolt's Wall Charger Is Not Enough?

Here is a new ad from Verizon for their new Thunderbolt phone:

The fine print was very early in the ad:

While “Do not attempt” is one of the most common fine prints in ads, this one is strange because who would even attempt this? What is he even attempting? Harnessing lightning? I would only trust Doc from Back to the Future to do that. I am actually more concerned about walking across rooftops with a ladder. I do not think Verizon has to worry about lawsuits from people walking across rooftops with long power cords in order to power their phone.

Thanks to reader Michael Mills for the idea submission.

3D TVs, Harmful to more than your Wallet?

This week’s edition is a 15 second spot from LG about their 3D TV:

Even though the spot is shorter than usual, the fine print might not be as obvious due to a white background:

Viewing 3D TV may cause discomfort? Isn’t watching TV supposed to be one of the most comfortable things you do next to sleeping? That’s like stating that this “food may not be tasty” or “mattress may be lumpy.” 3D TV and movies seem to be all the rage now and there are even ones without glasses. I was actually intrigued by them for a possible man cave years down the road, but maybe I could get a regular TV that does not give me a headache for half the price. While it makes sense to have this fine print in the terms of service online, as Philips and Sony have done, I am not sure it is necessary for a national TV spot, scaring off potential customers.