Description:
The double-sided pamphlet advertised a promotional discount with the purchase of the advertiser’s product, a household good. The format of the advertisement was structured with the look and feel of a “work order”. The ad included both a written description of the promotional offer that appeared to be hand-written in ink, together with a couple of product illustrations, one of which contained a watermark across it suggesting it was an illustrative product example and the other appeared hand-drawn. A disclaimer located at the bottom of the ad directed readers to the reverse side where the terms and conditions of the promotional offer were sited.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged that the format of the advertisement which looked like a work order and implied that an inspection of the recipient’s household good had taken place, was intentionally ambiguous in order to attract inquiries. This, the complainant claimed, created a significant risk of confusion and duress, misleading the more vulnerable readers to think that their home is in disrepair and in need of the advertiser’s product.
Response:
The advertiser maintained that the ad was completely accurate, in its response to Council, asserting that a homeowner would not be mislead to think the ad was reflective of their own home because there is no residential building in the province where you would find the specific product as it was illustrated on the ad. Furthermore, the advertiser added that because there was both a clear watermark running across the illustration [suggesting it was an illustrative product example], and a description including a product material that many consumers in the province do not have, consumers would not be mislead about the commercial intent of the pamphlet and understand it to be an ad soliciting the purchase of the specific product, as advertised.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
First, one Council member thought the perception of the pamphlet being a “work order” versus an “advertisement” might be unlikely because of the manner in which the printed description was portrayed and the watermark running across one of the product illustrations suggesting it was an illustrative product example. Some others felt the delivery method, being inside a newspaper, may be indicative that the pamphlet was an advertisement, and that if it was delivered to a home’s mailbox instead, that might have required additional or different disclosure identifying that. Furthermore, another Council member put forward that such a long disclaimer on the pamphlet might also suggest that it could be an advertisement.
These discussion points, however, were not enough to offset the otherwise misleading general impression that the pamphlet was a deceptive advertisement. In coming to that conclusion, Council considered that the hand-written manner in which the printed description was portrayed made the pamphlet appear more like a work order than an advertisement. Additionally, when it came to the watermark, the fact that it was only depicted across one of the illustrations created doubt as to what it meant and how it applied to the overall impression. All of this, Council was concerned, could cause confusion to some readers, particularly those who may not be as savvy in their understanding of the ad.
When it came to the advertiser’s assertion that consumers would not be mislead by the pamphlet due to the unavailability of the specific product and/or its material in the province, that carried little weight in the minds of Council who believed that the average consumer would not have knowledge of that. If the advertised product/material does not even exist, this made the ad untruthful, according to Council.
Council unanimously held that the ad contained a misleading claim, statement, illustration or representation, in contravention with Clause 1(a) of the Code, and that the ad was presented in a format or style that concealed the fact that it is an advertisement, in contravention with Clause 2 of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(a), Clause 2
