Posts Tagged ‘subway’

Results May Vary

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

As this year’s ERA Government Affairs Fly-In comes to a close, the FTC’s view on testimonials and endorsements has been the hot topic. The following column addressing this issue first appeared in Electronic Retailer in March of 2007.

ricknew1Disclaimer: Some readers of the following column may be amused and entertained; others may be put off by a perceived self-indulgent rant. Results may vary.

A few years ago, a client of mine who was sponsoring a car at the Indy 500 was gracious enough to invite me along. Just prior to the start of the race, a parade of stars was introduced. Who do you suppose elicited the greatest ovation from the crowd? Was it pop star and Proactiv endorser Jessica Simpson? Late night star cum racing team leader David Letterman? Jim “Gomer Pyle” Nabors singing “Back Home in Indiana” just prior to “Lady (thank you, Danica Patrick) and gentlemen, start your engines?” No, it was Jared Fogle. Jared Fogle? Yes, Jared–the Subway Guy.

I mention all this because as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) begins the process of reviewing its policy on testimonials in advertising, Jared and the billowing pants he used to wear when he was 235 pounds heavier are about to endure the kind of scrutiny serial dieters reserve for their waistline. The FTC is examining whether highlighting such extraordinary cases of success within advertising creates expectations in the mind of the consumer that are misleading or even deceptive, even though they may be accompanied by a disclaimer along the lines of “results not typical.” Given the prevalence in health, fitness and even financial direct marketing of such endorsements, this may threaten a core device advertisers have long employed to spur couch potatoes to take action.

The Jareds of the world are aspirational catalysts who inspire others to change their lives. Does anyone really think that by working out at 24 Hour Fitness, they can ride a bicycle like Lance Armstrong? No, but by endorsing this chain, Armstrong may lead the target audience to healthier living. Similarly, a tearful weight-loss infomercial testimonial that causes a viewer to pick up the phone could be viewed as a public service. Given the rate of obesity in America, shouldn’t these authentic testimonials be framed in a positive light?

In a world with scant heroes, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that commoner Jared received the greatest roar at Indy. Subway has tried many different campaigns in the near-decade since our bespectacled everyman first “ate fresh,” but keeps coming back to the icon that represents the ability of the average person to achieve extraordinary results. And what of the role of personal responsibility in making choices (something I would think our government would want to extol)? Having sat through countless focus groups, I can attest that consumers pay close attention to those mouse-typed disclaimers, and comprehend every word. The FTC should give them more credit. Perhaps a more appropriate disclaimer for such testimonials would be: “Individual desire or will may vary.” Fat chance.

Rick Petry
is a freelance writer who specializes in direct marketing. He can be reached at rick.petry@me.com.

For more information about ERA’s government affairs efforts, click here.

Chicago Tribune Interviews ERA’s CEO Julie Coons & Product Partners’ Jonathan Gelfand

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Consumers lured by advertisements promising rock-hard abs, sparkling white teeth and bulging bank accounts soon may get a reality check.

Updated guidelines on ad endorsements and testimonials under final review by the Federal Trade Commission—and widely expected to be adopted—would end marketers’ ability to talk up the extreme benefits of products while carrying disclaimers like “results not typical” or “individual results may vary.”

Instead, companies would be allowed to tout extreme results only if they also spelled out typical outcomes.

“For a good part of the last decade, we have noticed a problem, particularly with consumer testimonials,” said Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC’s division of advertising practices. “The use of consumer testimonials had become almost a safe harbor for companies as long as they threw in some sort of disclaimer about results not being typical.”

The changes are sending shudders through companies that worry about their ability to motivate consumers to buy their products if they can’t sell the sizzle.

“There would never be another Jared,” said Julie Coons, president and chief executive of the marketing trade group Electronic Retailing Association, referring to Jared Fogle, who became Subway’s spokesman after losing 245 pounds eating the chain’s sandwiches and exercising. “We’re all going to have to regroup” if the proposals stand.

To read the entire article, click here.

The Quiznos-Subway “Battle Royale”

Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

petermarinello.jpg If you haven’t seen it yet, there’s an interesting advertising dispute brewing between Quiznos and Subway sandwich shops. It seems Quiznos invited the public to submit homemade videos in a contest intended to target its rival, Subway. The contest rules stated that video submissions were meant to draw “a comparison between Quiznos and Subway with Quiznos being superior.”

One of the videos showed a Subway sandwich running to a Quiznos store to find more meat. Another showed two submarines looking like sandwiches, with the Subway submarine being destroyed because it did not have enough meat.

Subway subsequently sued Quiznos, alleging that several of the homemade videos made false claims and depicted its brand in a disparaging manner. In addition, Subway also objected to ads that Quiznos itself created, showing people on the street choosing Quiznos over Subway. The legal question here is because Quiznos did not create the submissions, so should it be held liable for user-generated content created on its behalf?

From a claim substantiation standpoint (assuming that the “more meat” claim is one of the false statements), I wouldn’t want to be the attorney representing Quiznos in this one. You see, knowledge is a dangerous thing. In my opinion, once an advertiser is made aware that claims are being disseminated in the marketplace without the prerequisite underlying support, the advertiser is responsible and must exercise a reasonable effort to remove the videos/ads from circulation. As Richard Leighton, a partner at Keller and Heckman who specializes in advertising and trademark law noted in a New York Times article: “It’s not like Quiznos said, ‘Do any interesting video you can.’ They provoked it, instigated it, so it may be that the consumers, in this case, are effectively their agents.” (more…)