ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, January 3, 1997 TAG: 9701030005
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ANTHONY GIORGIANNI THE HARTFORD COURANT
Is your toilet paper honestly the softest money can buy?
Do physicians truly prefer your pain reliever over all others?
Will your makeup really not rub off on your clothes or on him?
Well, that's what the ads say. And when it comes to makeup, do you think Cindy Crawford would actually lie?
Advertising claims are everywhere, but it's not enough to say that your paper towel is the most absorbent or your drain cleaner the fastest. Unless it's really true, there's a good chance some skeptic - especially a competitor - is going to call you on it.
It's a little-known fact of business life, but national advertising is challenged all the time.
One of the leading arbitrators of such challenges is the New York-based national advertising division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.
For 25 years, the organization's advertising experts have pondered ad copy, lab tests, technical reports and consumer surveys to answer such profound questions as: Is the Viva Ultra paper towel more absorbent than Bounty?
It seemed like it in one TV ad. It showed a sheet of Viva wiping up every drop of spilled cola in just one sweep, while Bounty left behind a puddle.
Bounty maker Procter & Gamble challenged the ad after it tried 85 times to reproduce the results. Most of the time, it said, Bounty performed better, although both brands left cola behind.
In December, the advertising division concluded that, even though the word ``dramatization'' appeared on the screen, the commercial misrepresented the absorbency of Viva. Although it disagreed with the ruling, the manufacturer, Scott Paper Co., pulled the ad.
In the Viva-Bounty case, as in many of the challenges, the issues were manifold, involving complicated tests and consumer surveys, all of which are open to debate and interpretation. The advertising division found, for example, that in testing the two paper towel brands, Scott unfairly relied on only one of three scientific measures of absorbency.
The truth and fairness of an advertising claim can be challenged for a variety of reasons. For example, a claim may be blatantly false; a fact may be presented in a misleading way; disclaimers may be inadequate.
Sometimes, the veracity of a claim can depend on the many shades of meaning that go with a certain phrase or word.
That was the issue in an ad that showed Crawford pulling a white sweater over her face and declaring before millions of American TV viewers that Revlon's ColorStay makeup ``won't rub off on your collar or on him.''
Before long, legions of women clad in white shirts spent the day going about their business in ColorStay makeup, at the behest of Revlon competitor Procter & Gamble Cosmetic and Fragrance Products. The company was out to test Revlon's assertion for itself.
The evidence showed that ColorStay makeup does rub off, Procter & Gamble complained. But Revlon came armed with the results of its own tests, also conducted on hundreds of women.
The contradictory tests impressed the advertising division, which concluded that the question came down to how viewers would interpret the word ``rub.''
It decided that Revlon had proved that ColorStay makeup effectively resists rubbing off during ``normal use.'' But the problem was the commercial gave no indication of how much rubbing the no-rub makeup could take.
Revlon responded by adding a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen, indicating that the no-rub-off claim applied to the product used under normal conditions.
The advertising division was created in 1971 by national advertisers, advertising agencies and their trade groups, all interested in self-regulation. Three years later they formed the Children's Advertising Review Unit, which examines ads aimed at young people.
The organizations are administered and funded by the Better Business Bureau system, which was created in 1912 to promote truth in advertising.
The advertising division's cases show how far companies go to support or challenge advertising claims, in some cases spending tens of thousands of dollars on research.
The cases also show how a truth - improperly presented - can create the wrong impression.
That was the finding regarding the TV commercial for the new, nonprescription version of the pain reliever Orudis KT.
The ad claimed: ``There are many prescription pain medications, and a doctor can prescribe any of them. Yet, 82 percent of doctors surveyed have prescribed Orudis.''
Literally true, the advertising division concluded this month in a challenge brought by the maker of Tylenol, McNeil Consumer Products Co.
The surveyed doctors had prescribed Orudis - at least once during their lifetimes. But the way the statement was worded created the false impression that doctors had chosen Orudis over other pain relievers, the advertising division ruled.
The manufacturer, American Home Products, objected to the decision, though it agreed ``to take (the advertising division's) comments into account in its future advertising of Orudis KT.'' It noted that the ads already had been discontinued.
Companies aren't required to obey the advertising division or even respond to the challenges.
But those that don't may very well see their case referred to the Federal Trade Commission or some other government agency with the power to impose stiff penalties on companies that engage in false advertising.
Sometimes the decision about whether an advertisement is false or misleading depends on issues that border on the bizarre.
For example, when you want to find out which cat food a cat prefers, do you ask the cat or the cat's owner?
That was one of the questions asked when the H.J. Heinz Co., maker of 9-Lives, challenged Nestle Food Co.'s ad for Alpo cat food.
What matters, said Heinz, is the cat owner's perception of what the cat prefers.
But the advertising division found no fault with Nestle's approach, which was to feed the cat and then scientifically gauge the animal's response.
To challenge a claim made by any national advertisement, including those on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines and even on the Internet, send a letter and any supporting materials to: The Director, National Advertising Division, Council of Better Business Bureaus Inc., 845 Third Ave., New York, N.Y., 10022. Challenges of national advertising aimed at children should be sent to the director of the Children's Advertising Review Unit at the same address.
LENGTH: Long : 115 linesby CNB