<![CDATA[Consumerist: truth in advertising]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: truth in advertising]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/truth in advertising http://consumerist.com/tag/truth in advertising <![CDATA[ This Dollar Store Taunts You With The Past ]]> Can there be any sadder indication of our toilet-water economy than a dollar store that references its own happier, cheaper past? This New York City dollar store has pulled down its old sign, "Everything 99¢ Or Less," and rebranded.

Sometimes truth in advertising hurts, especially when you can still see the outline of the former sign above the new one.

Update: The new sign may have actually gone up a while back, in which case it's more an illustration of NYC's high cost of living than current inflation. Even if that's the case, you'd think they'd do something about the remnants of that old sign taunting everyone.

Update #2: Another reader, David, sent us a picture he took last summer of the same store. It appears "99¢ Dreams" is in a constant state of naming flux:

We sort of like "OR LESS OR MORE" as a slogan—makes it seem more like a carnival game, somehow.

(Thanks to Larry!)

]]>
Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:04:22 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5043187&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Publix Helpfully Suggests That You Shop At Winn-Dixie ]]> Kevin was shopping at the Publix in Birmingham, AL when he spotted this helpful sign.

Kevin says:

I just had to take a picture and send it to you. Maybe we should start shopping at Winn Dixie?

Oh, I don't know, Kevin. Perhaps you should reward Publix for their unflinching honesty? Or something?

]]>
Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:59:24 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5022503&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ "The Astrologer" magazine shuttered in December ... ]]> Aughra would have foreseen. "The Astrologer" magazine shuttered in December 2007 due to "unforeseen circumstances." Hmm. [Neatorama]

]]>
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:57:17 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=346250&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ AT&T May Limit Unlimited Data Plans To 5GB Per Month, Remove Text Messaging ]]> Unlimited Is Negotiable - The New AT&T IntoMobile writes that an "agent/employee discussion forum at HowardForums has revealed the possibility of new data plans for AT&T." The new plans would be slightly cheaper, but do away with included text messages and impose a "soft cap" of 5GB per month data usage on the so-called "unlimited" MediaMax packages, and users who go over that will be urged (?) to sign up for a more expensive plan. Urged? Soft cap? How does that work in a business situation? Unlimited is unlimited, right?

Unlimited PDA data plans will be lowered to $30, with unlimited MediaNET access going for just $15 per month. However, text messages will no longer be bundled with data plans. An extra $5 gets you 200 SMS text messages per month, $15 gets you 1,500 text messages, $20 gets you unlimited individual texts, and $30 gives your family plan unlimited text messaging.

"AT&T May Limit Unlimited Data Plans To 5GB Per Month
"
[IntoMobile]

RELATED
Forum posting on HowardForums
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:23:26 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=344625&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Director Of "National Treasure" Weighs In On Misleading Trailers ]]> con_trickedintoanothermovie.jpg After David Pogue's public complaint last week that some movie trailers go too far in misleading consumers about the movie, he was contacted by the director of both "National Treasure" flicks, Jon Turteltaub, who offered his opinion on the practice: "What's funny is that the filmmakers do exactly what you do. I was watching the final trailer for my movie, saying what you said: 'Ummm....that's not in the movie, that's not in the movie, THAT'S not in the movie.'"

He more or less washes his hands of the practice, which isn't surprising since he has nothing to do with what goes into a trailer—it's all marketing drones and studio fat cats assembling it, using dailies that are sent in during shooting, writes Turteltaub.

But he also offers the industry a good business reason for not lying to consumers—it won't help move your product in the long run.

For me, the biggest problem that comes up is when the trailers and TV spots don't reflect the essence of the movie they are selling... The studio often feels that the movie they made isn't a movie they can sell... so they sell it as a different movie. What happens is that the wrong audience sees the movie on opening weekend, and the word of mouth is all wrong. Great movies can get lost because of this.

"Movie Trailers: The Final Cut" [New York Times]

RELATED
"Can A Movie Trailer Be Accused Of False Advertising?"
(Photo: Kuckuck)

]]>
Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:18:04 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=343942&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Can A Movie Trailer Be Accused Of False Advertising? ]]> con_natltreasureposter.jpg David Pogue has an interesting rant in today's Circuits column about the movie "National Treasure: Book of Secrets"—or more specifically about its trailer, which is chock-full of scenes, dialogue, locations, and plot references that are nowhere to be found in the actual movie. He asks, "Just how different can a trailer be without becoming false advertising?" We immediately thought about last year's kids flick "Bridge to Terabithia," which was advertised like a whimsical Narnia spin-off but in reality was about the death of a major character.

In that case, reviewers got the word out to unwary parents fairly well—pretty much every review hinted that viewers should make sure they understood the content before seeing the movie. But shouldn't studios be more honest in representing the content of their films?

In this case, those lines from Riley made the movie seem funnier than it was, the president's line made the dramatic stakes seem higher than they were, and the scenes at the Lincoln Memorial made the historical conspiracy seem more ingenious than it was (historical clues hidden right under our noses!). I can say with confidence that some of those elements played a part in my wanting to see the movie.
Rearranging scenes in the trailer is one thing. But what about this business of putting stuff in the trailer — a *lot* of stuff — that isn't in the movie at all? If they can get away with "National Treasure"-style misrepresentation, what's to stop other moviemakers from putting special effects, witty lines, exotic locales and hot-looking actors into *their* trailers, just to get us to go to a movie that doesn't have any of those things?

"When Movies Don't Live Up to the Trailer" [New York Times]

]]>
Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:37:10 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=340266&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Chuck Norris: "I Can't Do All That Stuff" ]]> Chuck Norris is too big for this image Chuck Norris is suing publisher Penguin and author Ian Spector over the book "The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World's Greatest Human". Among other claims, the suit states that the "book's title would mislead readers into thinking the facts were true." This means that apparently Chuck Norris cannot cure your cancer with his tears, he did not create a giraffe by uppercutting a horse, and he cannot speak braille. If only Kevin Trudeau could be so honest.

"Chuck Norris sues, says his tears no cancer cure" [Reuters]

]]>
Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:09:53 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=337409&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Amuse Yourself And Others With Merchandise Stickers ]]> con_stickers.jpg We don't actually recommend you go into stores and put these stickers on merchandise you haven't bought, or outdoors on poster ads that you didn't place. But it's still fun to look at them and imagine all the great places they would add value to a merch display. The "Actual Size!" stickers are more absurd, but their potential for hilarity is much higher: "80% of public advertisements would be greatly improved by an 'actual size!' claim, from 8.5x11 "Regina Spektor Live In Concert!" flyers to ten-foot PS3 banners to airline ads in the subway with pictures of 747s."

Both sets of stickers are available for sale from their respective sites, although we imagine for about the same price you can probably knock together some DIY versions and avoid the shipping delay.

"Now Slower..." stickers [Evil Mad Scientist via Neatorama]
"Actual Size!" stickers [xkcd]

]]>
Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:37:52 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=336957&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Aquafina Changes Label, Admits It's Tap Water ]]>
Aquafina, PepsiCo's best-selling bottled water, is changing its label to clarify its true source: city water supplies. The labels have never claimed to be spring water, but the price, packaging, and placement in stores apparently made enough of the world believe it was.

A group called Corporate Accountability International has been pressuring bottled water sellers to curb what it calls misleading marketing practices. The group has criticized PepsiCo over its blue Aquafina label with a mountain logo as perpetuating the misconception that the water comes from spring sources.

Aquafina is the single biggest bottled water brand, and its bottles are now labeled "P.W.S." The new labels will spell out "public water source."


So they still avoid the T word — tap — and "public water source" is still somewhat vague. (Someone might think the water comes from a public spring or well? Maybe?)

$11 billion of bottled water — combining spring water and purified tap water — was sold last year in the U.S. alone.

Aquafina Labels To Show Source: Tap Water [CBS News]
(Photo: gordasm)

]]>
Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:50:16 EDT ashley http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=283981&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Truth in Advertising ]]>

This is not particularly worksafe if your office is against the loud blaring of profanity from your computer speakers. And it's probably like six minutes too long. But we still got a chuckle out of this spoof of the advertising industry — from initial brief to advertising award ceremony — with all the arrogant superciliousness
of business mannerisms intact, but with refreshingly blunt dialogue coming from all the characters mouths. "You must keep the Teddy Bear logo."

Or, to echo the blunt truth of the clip, posting a movie is an easy way to knock one off our daily post quota. Enjoy!

]]>
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:13:39 EDT consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=199977&view=rss&microfeed=true