Advertisements that make outrageous claims in their ad
campaigns are not lying; they are just using “puffery”. Generally speaking, puffery means to
use flattering, or exaggerated claims in promotion. Puffery isn’t considered false advertising if a person with
common sense knows the advertisement isn’t real. For example, the statement “red bull gives you wings”. We know red bull won’t actually make
you sprout a pair of wings, but companies use claims like this to gain the
consumers attention.
According to Forum for
the Future, the term
eco-promising is used to understand the practice of environmental claims and
communication for a company’s products and services. They also suggest ways companies should communicate with
their end users through the following tactics: companies must be transparent in
their claims in order to gain consumers trust, be diverse in their means of
communication feeding the eager to be eco-conscious while not off-putting the
less committed, and should keep credible to their claims. However, this doesn’t always happen and
consumers are then left feeling uncertain.
Forum for the Future
states that eco-promises must be specific and believable in order to be
persuasive. With an overload of
information and companies each having their own definition of environmental
products it is easy for consumers to feel fatigue, confused, or down right
manipulated. Some companies are
guilty of green washing or green marketing, which is deceptively spinning their
products to seem environmentally friendly. According to The
Greenwash Guide, there are signs we can look for to determine if we are
being “greenwashed”; watch for fluffy language, suggestive pictures, irrelevant
claims, and claims that have no proof.
Lets take a look at some good and bad examples of advertisement:
^ Patagonia’s product
production ^
^ Poetree: A Funeral Urn
that lets you plant a tree from Ashes^
The three pictures above follow the guidelines previously
suggested by Forum for the Future, by
using transparency in their advertisement. Patagonia’s website allows you to navigate the good, the
bad, and the ugly by explaining how their garments are actually produced. As a consumer, I appreciate seeing the
“footprint” my purchases will make on the environment. The next pictures are of “Poetree”, a
funeral urn that allows your ashes to become interweaved into a biodegradable plant
base and put into the earth without negative effects on the environment.
A furniture company out of California called Cisco brothers
uses the next two pictures on their website. After navigating the site their products appear to be
environmentally friendly, but where is the proof? In the second picture, they
are promoting their products being handmade in South Central LA, but this does
not prove that their practices are actually sustainable. What about their factory or use of transportation?
^Implied Claim by Cisco
Brothers^
^Cisco Brothers^
Navigating the world of advertising can be difficult, and
it’s hard to know which claims are honest and which are solely promoting
products. It’s important to
remember that we can no longer take advertisement claims at face value. At this point, most businesses are
unique in their claims of eco-friendliness. Thus, we need to dig deeper and see if what the company is
claiming is true or puffery.
Kimberly! Another job well done. You've provided some great examples! Can you tell me why you chose this topic this week?
ReplyDeleteDr. Armstrong,
DeleteI actually used to be a Public Relations major and the concept of companies using puffery or "spinning" their image is interesting to me. Also, last semester I was able to visit a few furniture manufacturing companies. One company I visited used "hand made" manufacturing, just like my Cisco Brothers example claims to do. Upon closer inspection the companies are "hand making" their products, but it didnt mean it was more economical or environmental. In fact, when walking through the factory the off gasing from the paint and stain was overwhelming.
Thank you very much!!!
Thanks for the reply, Kimberly! That is really interesting. A few years ago I was at a conference special session where a woman was serving on a panel who claimed her brand of baby clothes were made in the US. But, as we asked her more questions, we discovered that all her materials for the products were coming from China. When you cost out a garment, labor (the only thing that was US-based in this case) accounts for the smallest portion of a garment's cost. I thought the conference participants were going to burn her at the stake. So, there is still A LOT of room for manipulation of the facts!
DeleteWow, that is crazy! I must admit I find it entertaining that the you and the participants called her out on it! I am sure there are a lot of times this manipulation takes place, but nobody questions it. In your instance, that woman has completely lost her credibility for her company. Its ironic that she was attempting to pump up her image by telling a "white lie", but ended up tainting her product for you (and Im sure everyone else too) for years to come! Thanks for sharing your story!
DeleteKimberly,
ReplyDeleteI thought your blog this week did an awesome job summarizing some of the main points that the readings discussed, as well as providing some strong examples of good and bad advertising. It was easy to see that you did some research to support your argument. You say that as a consumer you appreciate seeing the "footprint" that your purchases will have on the environment, and I agree! Would you say that this type of advertisement would be the difference in you purchasing from a generic brand versus a well-known, more popular brand? I think that consumers these days are very adament about spending their money only on brands that they are well-familiarized with. What do you think?
Mallory,
DeleteFor me personally, I would say that no matter the brand name, if the company could prove or show their "footprint" (such as the Patagonia website does) and produce quality products then I would be more inclined to purchase from them. I feel as though the general public is all subject to "branding". Thus, they are going to keep going back to the brands they are familiar with. Most household name brands become known based on their quality and styling. If one of these "generic" brands could brand themselves towards a particular target group, then I feel as though they would have success, just as Patagonia does.
Thanks for your feedback and thoughts on the subject!
Kimberly,
DeleteI can see your point. However I do agree with you when you say that the general public is all subject to "branding" and everything that goes along with it. There obviously has to be some sort of market that is continuously buying the generic brands, otherwise they would not still exist! I am sure that they are gaining even more profits today considering the weak economy. Anyways, great job!
Kimberly,
ReplyDeleteI thought your blog this week was very well written and the pictures helped me better understand what puffery is and how it is often used. I loved that you did so much other research for this blog. I agree wit you that I like to see the whole foot print of an item before I purchase it so I know exactly how it is affecting the environment. I think that other company's would be more successful if they followed the lead that Patagonia has set and show exactly where there products come from. What are some other ways that other producers could prove their sustainability and eco friendly ways?
Kellee,
DeleteThank you! As I mentioned to Dr. Armstrong, my previous major sparked an interest in advertisement and PR. Im glad I am able to apply it in various avenues. I think as far as "proof" is concerned, companies just need to be able to back up their claims. If a company claims to use organic cotton, then they need to be able to show where the production took place. I feel as though most companies are feeding off the environmental movement and are spinning it to include them, when it doesn't. In the example of organic cotton, we need to know more information. Where was it produced and by whom? What was the means of transportation? What is the factory environment like for that particular product? The list could go on and on, but Im not sure many companies want to be transparent in their practices. However, as consumers we need to demand that they do!