|
On April 29 2012 01:38 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 29 2012 01:22 dmfg wrote:On April 29 2012 00:57 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 28 2012 08:57 MadProbe wrote:Now before you hate on this lady for being stupid.... see the actual advertisement first! http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRAThat's fuckin sleezy advertising. I'm glad they got sued. ps how do u embed video on TL? As one commenter said, this ad is misleading only if you're a moron. Nowhere does it say that Nutella is healthy. In fact, all it really says is that Nutella has nuts, milk and cocoa, and that it tastes good. And who are you to judge who is a "moron" and who isn't? And why should "morons" not receive the same anti-exploitation protection that the rest of us enjoy, from these fair trading laws? I cannot for the life of me understand this mentality of "I'm smart enough to avoid <bad thing>, people who are less smart than me deserve to be punished by <bad thing> for not being smart enough". If anything, those are the people who most need help and protection. But then there's an inevitable slippery slope where every ad has to be boring and representative of real life. Cereal ads should always be grumpy people with bed head slowly eating cereals with a coffee while watching the weather channel and wanting to die. If morons think that red bull will help you grow little angel wings, it's their problem. These have been enforced for years in the UK by bodies like the Advertising Standards Agency and I haven't noticed the adverts on my TV getting any more "boring", or involving grumpy people. The vast majority of adverts manage to make a product seem appealing without sending an untrue message (explicitly or implicitly). And again, I don't understand why you are arguing to strip to away this protection that was put in place explicitly to protect people that might be unfairly mislead by these adverts. You're not gonna be affected by it, so why screw them over?
Some products that are not misleading can be misinterpreted as misleading by stupid people, and there's nothing we can do against that except completely dull down ads which are already boring enough as it is. Nutella ads for instance show energic and happy people, which are effects that f'ing chocolate and sugar can have. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy with long term use.
Should all ads have the "Only good in moderation" or should people be expected to do well for themselves? I'm all for customer protection, and I'm against misleading ads of course, but if morons misinterpret ads too badly, well there's nothing we can do about it.
My mini-wheats NEVER SING, EVER.
|
The companies that really need to get sued are breakfast cereal makers. They have managed to convince hundreds of millions of people that putting what are essentially extremely sugary cookies in milk makes for a healthy diet. Hence "part of a healthy breakfast".
|
Some products that are not misleading can be misinterpreted as misleading by stupid people, and there's nothing we can do against that except completely dull down ads which are already boring enough as it is. Nutella ads for instance show energic and happy people, which are effects that f'ing chocolate and sugar can have. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy with long term use.
There's a large difference between an implicit consequence of "This product will make you happy", becuase all products do that within two-three step seperation, and an explicit consequence of "This product will make your hair grow back" when it doesn't. Similarily, it's one thing to say Nutella will make your kids happy, but quite another to suggest chocolate frosting with nuts belongs anywhere near a breakfast table.
|
On April 29 2012 01:10 MadProbe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 00:57 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 28 2012 08:57 MadProbe wrote:Now before you hate on this lady for being stupid.... see the actual advertisement first! http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRAThat's fuckin sleezy advertising. I'm glad they got sued. ps how do u embed video on TL? As one commenter said, this ad is misleading only if you're a moron. Nowhere does it say that Nutella is healthy. In fact, all it really says is that Nutella has nuts, milk and coca, and that it tastes good. Yeah, they don't outright say that Nutella is healthy. But they STRONGLY imply it. That's the whole "angle" of this ad. They DID say that feeding nutella for breakfast helps your kids eat healthy foods. Someone else has said this better before me: Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 10:15 Bigtony wrote:
...your logic is undeniable sir. They never say "nutella is healthy" outright. Just like tobacco commercials don't say "smoking will make you way cool bro" and liquor commercials don't say "drink this so you can be cool and awesome like the people in this commercial."
Are you prepared to tell me that is not the clear implication of these commercials? And yeah, it takes a moron to actually believe it-- but that's who they're marketing to. Am I the only one who thinks convincing mothers to feed their children Nutella for breakfast because it is healthy is criminal? Wouldn't you be outraged if Mcdonalds was marketed as healthy? FOR CHILDREN? That's disgusting.
They did not imply Nutella is healthy.
If including healthy looking kids eating Nutella implies that Nutella is healthy then essentially everything advertised on TV implies health, as you virtually never see a sick kid in a TV ad.
Also, where does it say feeding Nutella for breakfast helps your kids eat healthy foods?
I hate misleading advertising as much as anyone, but to suggest this ad is misleading is laughable, and people are laughing over this frivolity.
|
On April 29 2012 01:45 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:38 dmfg wrote:On April 29 2012 01:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 29 2012 01:22 dmfg wrote:On April 29 2012 00:57 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 28 2012 08:57 MadProbe wrote:Now before you hate on this lady for being stupid.... see the actual advertisement first! http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRAThat's fuckin sleezy advertising. I'm glad they got sued. ps how do u embed video on TL? As one commenter said, this ad is misleading only if you're a moron. Nowhere does it say that Nutella is healthy. In fact, all it really says is that Nutella has nuts, milk and cocoa, and that it tastes good. And who are you to judge who is a "moron" and who isn't? And why should "morons" not receive the same anti-exploitation protection that the rest of us enjoy, from these fair trading laws? I cannot for the life of me understand this mentality of "I'm smart enough to avoid <bad thing>, people who are less smart than me deserve to be punished by <bad thing> for not being smart enough". If anything, those are the people who most need help and protection. But then there's an inevitable slippery slope where every ad has to be boring and representative of real life. Cereal ads should always be grumpy people with bed head slowly eating cereals with a coffee while watching the weather channel and wanting to die. If morons think that red bull will help you grow little angel wings, it's their problem. These have been enforced for years in the UK by bodies like the Advertising Standards Agency and I haven't noticed the adverts on my TV getting any more "boring", or involving grumpy people. The vast majority of adverts manage to make a product seem appealing without sending an untrue message (explicitly or implicitly). And again, I don't understand why you are arguing to strip to away this protection that was put in place explicitly to protect people that might be unfairly mislead by these adverts. You're not gonna be affected by it, so why screw them over? Some products that are not misleading can be misinterpreted as misleading by stupid people, and there's nothing we can do against that except completely dull down ads which are already boring enough as it is. Nutella ads for instance show energic and happy people, which are effects that f'ing chocolate and sugar can have. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy with long term use. Should all ads have the "Only good in moderation" or should people be expected to do well for themselves? I'm all for customer protection, and I'm against misleading ads of course, but if morons misinterpret ads too badly, well there's nothing we can do about it. My mini-wheats NEVER SING, EVER.
It's true that non-misleading adverts can be misinterpreted, but that doesn't constitute unfair advertising.
As I said, ultimately the decision over whether an advert is misleading or not is subjective, and depends on the relevant advertising standards association's interpretation. In this case, I think on balance it's misleading since it advocates feeding nutella to your kids for breakfast every day.
Adverts don't all need to say "only good in moderation" - however, if the advert itself is demonstrating it being used in excess, then I think it's reasonable to demand that they either change their advertising, or include a warning. The reason MacDonalds, BK, etc can advertise all their unhealthy food is because they just advertise the food for what it is - they don't tell you "you can eat this every day".
|
On April 29 2012 01:50 inlagdsil wrote:
The companies that really need to get sued are breakfast cereal makers. They have managed to convince hundreds of millions of people that putting what are essentially extremely sugary cookies in milk makes for a healthy diet. Hence "part of a healthy breakfast".
Agree with this 100% in principle - however, all the cereal ads I've seen stick (juuuuust) within the limits of fair advertising, usually by using that "as part of a balanced and healthy diet" disclaimer you mentioned.
And proving in court that the subsequent obesity is a direct consequence of that cereal consumption just seems too difficult to do convincingly. I think that sadly, they will probably continue to get away with it.
|
You can't protect stupid people from their own stupidity.
|
On April 29 2012 02:00 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On April 29 2012 01:38 dmfg wrote:On April 29 2012 01:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 29 2012 01:22 dmfg wrote:On April 29 2012 00:57 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 28 2012 08:57 MadProbe wrote:Now before you hate on this lady for being stupid.... see the actual advertisement first! http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRAThat's fuckin sleezy advertising. I'm glad they got sued. ps how do u embed video on TL? As one commenter said, this ad is misleading only if you're a moron. Nowhere does it say that Nutella is healthy. In fact, all it really says is that Nutella has nuts, milk and cocoa, and that it tastes good. And who are you to judge who is a "moron" and who isn't? And why should "morons" not receive the same anti-exploitation protection that the rest of us enjoy, from these fair trading laws? I cannot for the life of me understand this mentality of "I'm smart enough to avoid <bad thing>, people who are less smart than me deserve to be punished by <bad thing> for not being smart enough". If anything, those are the people who most need help and protection. But then there's an inevitable slippery slope where every ad has to be boring and representative of real life. Cereal ads should always be grumpy people with bed head slowly eating cereals with a coffee while watching the weather channel and wanting to die. If morons think that red bull will help you grow little angel wings, it's their problem. These have been enforced for years in the UK by bodies like the Advertising Standards Agency and I haven't noticed the adverts on my TV getting any more "boring", or involving grumpy people. The vast majority of adverts manage to make a product seem appealing without sending an untrue message (explicitly or implicitly). And again, I don't understand why you are arguing to strip to away this protection that was put in place explicitly to protect people that might be unfairly mislead by these adverts. You're not gonna be affected by it, so why screw them over? Some products that are not misleading can be misinterpreted as misleading by stupid people, and there's nothing we can do against that except completely dull down ads which are already boring enough as it is. Nutella ads for instance show energic and happy people, which are effects that f'ing chocolate and sugar can have. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy with long term use. Should all ads have the "Only good in moderation" or should people be expected to do well for themselves? I'm all for customer protection, and I'm against misleading ads of course, but if morons misinterpret ads too badly, well there's nothing we can do about it. My mini-wheats NEVER SING, EVER. It's true that non-misleading adverts can be misinterpreted, but that doesn't constitute unfair advertising. As I said, ultimately the decision over whether an advert is misleading or not is subjective, and depends on the relevant advertising standards association's interpretation. In this case, I think on balance it's misleading since it advocates feeding nutella to your kids for breakfast every day. Adverts don't all need to say "only good in moderation" - however, if the advert itself is demonstrating it being used in excess, then I think it's reasonable to demand that they either change their advertising, or include a warning. The reason MacDonalds, BK, etc can advertise all their unhealthy food is because they just advertise the food for what it is - they don't tell you "you can eat this every day".
I think that babysitting the population only goes so far, and bad parenting is the fault of the bad parent and not because of a slightly misleading ad.
|
I would like to note that Yahoo news, especially anything related to politics or court cases, is an incredibly unreliable source of news. You may as well be reading the Gaurdian.
|
Wow, this lady needs a hard slap... How can you expect chocolate to be healthy...
|
Estonia4644 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. Don't stick forks in electrical sockets. Don't jump off building roofs.
mind. blown
|
On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 17:14 Daogin wrote:On April 28 2012 16:55 Man with a Plan wrote:On April 28 2012 16:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups Yeah, the McDonald's example is becoming a legend that people do not anymore know the real story behind it. The sad thing about it is that the woman didn't even get compensated. the thing that gets me about mcdonalds is the fact that i dont even know how they managed to get such "hot" coffee. I work at Tim Hortons and the hottest thing we serve is tea, which is boiling water but not enough to cause third degree burns. I've even spilt it all over my hands, yea it's hot but not that hot :S I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment.
You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee.
Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F.
Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making.
|
I think that babysitting the population only goes so far, and bad parenting is the fault of the bad parent and not because of a slightly misleading ad.
For example, from the Yahoo article:
Hohenberg, it seems, believed that Nutella was a great dietary choice for her four-year-old daughter.
Speculative, and note the implication of Hohenburg thinking it was a "great". We can only dervive she thought it was "acceptable" enough to include, not that it was neccesarily healthly food. Food is not a binary spectrum between "good" and "bad". Butter is awful for you, but you can still include it at breakfast time.
|
On April 28 2012 23:12 dicex wrote:
Wait, so in the US you don't have to write nutrition data on your product???
Not sure how you inferred that from the facts. FDA requires nutritional facts for prepared foods. The only things that don't require labels are "conventional foods", such as raw materials like fresh veggies, raw fish, raw meat, etc.
|
On April 29 2012 02:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote:On April 28 2012 17:14 Daogin wrote:On April 28 2012 16:55 Man with a Plan wrote:On April 28 2012 16:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups Yeah, the McDonald's example is becoming a legend that people do not anymore know the real story behind it. The sad thing about it is that the woman didn't even get compensated. the thing that gets me about mcdonalds is the fact that i dont even know how they managed to get such "hot" coffee. I work at Tim Hortons and the hottest thing we serve is tea, which is boiling water but not enough to cause third degree burns. I've even spilt it all over my hands, yea it's hot but not that hot :S I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee. Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F. Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making.
I agree. The fact that coffee is generally hot isn't a free license to make it scolding hot without limit.
|
On April 28 2012 08:38 rotinegg wrote:http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/today-food-finance-nutella-not-broccoli-162956191.htmlSo basically, Ferrero, the company that makes Nutella, got sued by some woman named Athena Hohenberg, because she was an idiot and thought Nutella would be HEALTHY for her children. Turns out, it's not (surprise surprise) and she filed a lawsuit claiming false advertising. She won the case, and Ferrero has to shell out $3.5 million, 2.5 of which will be spread out to claimants in a class action lawsuit. I think this is retarded, and sometimes I really hate the people we live with. Thoughts?
This is the reason why the whole world think americans are dumb.
No offense but when you hear something like that...
|
On April 28 2012 18:27 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 18:14 gruff wrote:
How many people actually read the labels on what they eat? Sure it should be fairly obvious that nutella is not good for you but I wonder if the "she should have read the label" people do the same on everything they eat. If a company uses advertisements that is very misleading or just factually incorrect they should have lawsuits coming their way, I don't get why people are opposed to this.
If I wasn't so lazy I'd probably try to do the same based on some retarded ads I've seen in my life. Thank fuck, finally someone GETS IT. It's impossible to double-check everything and run a background search on every product you ever come across. The only rational way to keep people informed is to put accurate information (the good and the bad) within the ad itself. Besides, it's not like it's something unheard of in advertising. In a lot of countries, medicine and cigarette ads have to display a message that the product may be harmful for you, and specify how/why exactly - both in the ad itself and make it very visible on the product container (and in clear and simple language, not something as obscure as "nutrition tables"). Food industry has been getting away with far too much crap lately, and they've not been held accountable for it. Given that the quality of food we eat is deteriorating by the day, it's ridiculous to be opposed to lawsuits like this - at least until food advertising is properly regulated and put under control.
They have a whole ad campaign in america that was based around how health nuttella is. I've seen the commercials.
|
|
|
Wasn't there an old lady who tried to dry up her dog in the microwave and sued the microwave company for not giving any notice about not putting pets in the microwave ?
|
I think she should be considered an unfit parent and her children should be sent to foster homes.
That'll teacher to fuck with Nutella.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
