Out of the Box

Stretching the Truth in Advertising

By Menachem Lubinsky on April 25 2008

“Save Money. Live Better” was the theme of an advertising campaign by Wal-Mart that also told consumers that by shopping at Wal-Mart they could save as much as $2500. Although based on solid research, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus did not like it one bit. Imagine that Wal-Mart was reprimanded not for telling a mistruth, which it did not, but for stretching the truth a bit.

What NAD was saying was not that consumers could not save the $2500 by shopping at Wal-Mart but that they could also realize the savings by shopping elsewhere. On the surface, NAD seemed to be overreacting. The Wal-Mart claim would certainly have passed muster in most states with Truth in Advertising laws. There was nothing patently false in the Wal-Mart claim, nor was there even an exaggeration. It is clear that Wal-Mart did not intend to mislead but to state the obvious. But NAD and some marketers felt that it was unfair of Wal-Mart not to tell the truth that while these savings could be realized at Wal-Mart, they could also be secured elsewhere. Wal-Mart since modified the claim to make it clearer that people need not necessarily shop at Wal-Mart to get the $2,500 in savings. If this standard is to be applied elsewhere, it would no doubt put into question a whole generation of advertising that is even more problematic. Some chains routinely used the phrase “Only at” when in truth other stores also offer the same deal. Abuses of boastful claims are far worse than what Wal-Mart was accused of doing. You have probably seen “the leading","your # 1”; and so forth when there is absolutely nothing that makes the product or business stand out.

In acknowledging the problem, Wal-Mart wanted to remind consumers that the infraction it was accused of was never intended to mislead and was, in fact based on fact. Said the spokeswoman: “We’re pleased the NAD found the express claim was supported. Our intended message was substantiated.”

The fundamental question for Wal-Mart was how to tweak a message that was key to its strategic positioning. It wanted to remind customers that substantial money could be saved by shopping at Wal-Mart. By adding a caveat that the same savings could be realized elsewhere, it was robbing itself of its own thunder. For example, would it have made a difference if Wal-Mart said “Our customers save as much as $2500.” Perhaps, but that might not have satisfied the NAD in its efforts to protect consumers and be politically correct.

It is sometimes the most difficult challenge for marketers: finding a claim that can be substantiated and that can favorably position the institution versus its competitors. In today’s day and age, customers are looking for a reason to prefer one product over another or a business over its competitor.

I recall a particular painstaking session with a client looking for a claim that would give him an edge over his competition. He even went to the trouble of preparing an exhaustive list of all of the features of his product, only to dismiss each of them as being similar to a competitor’s product. The only feature that he could not find a comparison to was his new packaging which he claimed was not matched by any of his competitors. We ultimately settled on the package with an ad showing the product as well as the package that read: “It all Begins With the Package.” Sales rocketed by 28% in two months.

The package story illustrates that some of the best ads are often the most simple ones. It reminds me of an ad I saw in the early ‘80’s about a resort that read: “We wish we could be different, but we’re happy to be just as good or better.” They claimed that reservations climbed by 30%.

It is possible that Wal-Mart too could have turned everyone into a Wal-Mart shopper. It could have said “Wal-Mart Shoppers save $2500 a Year.” Perhaps that would have meant, sure you could save $2500 if you shop at Target or anywhere else but this is about Wal-Mart shoppers.

The NAD criticism of Wal-Mart may be particularly harsh because it is Wal-Mart. If another store said: “At ABC, we pamper our customers” would that be taken to mean that other stores do not take care of their customers. And what about all of the ads that claim “lowest prices.” Lowest? Does that mean that the advertiser actually made sure that it was the lowest? Would it have made a difference if it said “Low Prices?” But even then, would that imply that everyone else does not have low prices?

It is obvious that Wal-Mart got singled out for special attention and that its behavior, like many other bellwethers, is constantly under the microscope. But it is also clear that stretching the truth can be equally scrutinized with claims that are false.

Out of the Box is a collection of strategic marketing articles that Lubicom has published on various topics, trends and ideas in the marketing world. The articles have been published in the Hamodia weekly newspaper circulated on three continents to a readership of well over 100,000.

The name, "Out of the Box" is a term used frequently in business nowadays to describe creative thinking that is not the norm. It is meant to help a business pull away from the pack or separate oneself from the competition. It is to some extent fraught with risk, simply because it is not the run of the mill thinking, but it is at the same time the key to reaching the next opportunity.