May
5
Truth in advertising?
Filed Under Uncategorized |
There is a long-standing tradition in these United States, that advertizements must remain truthful in their claims. This is common sense, and protects consumers from the charms and claims of snake-oil salesmen.
According to the Federal Trade Commission Act these following rules apply:
• Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
• Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
• Advertisements cannot be unfair.
Likewise, according to the Federal Trade Commission, an ad is considered “deceptive” if it contains statements, or omits information-that:
• Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
• Is “material” - that is, important to a consumer’s decision to buy or use the product.
Now I have recently read the following ads which step right over these boundaries and are clearly misrepresentative in their claims. Not surprisingly, these nurturing fictions come stamped with the seal of approval from that great conservation swindler, the present director of the Cape May Bird Observatory.
I was thrilled to find out that the World Series of Birding is:
A: “North America’s premier conservation event”
Funny, I would have thought that the annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology might better suit that moniker, but who am I to judge….
I was likewise incredibly impressed to learn that:
B:”This event has changed the birding landscape and raised over $8,000,000 for bird conservation. Every species found – every dollar raised preserves and protects critical bird habitat.”
I was also under the impression that any statement claiming a superlative, (like “Always”; “Never”; “Each and every”, etc.) must either back the claim up, or should be treated with circumspection.
Well, I for one would sure love to see that breakdown of figures. I would also love to know just how an event called a “World Series” is a “conservation event”, and not a sporting one.
Each and every dollar of the World Series of Birding has preserved bird habitat? Wow, now I am really impressed by the ad, and event. And I can open my wallet knowing that none of that $8 Million has gone to say, writing bad books, or funding silly pamphlets on optics purchases I guess.
$8 million could indeed buy a lot of real-estate, but the last I heard, only the state and a very few organizations like the Nature Conservancy, for instance, were actually preserving and protecting critical bird habitat, and much of the monies generated from the World Series of Birding go to things like funding the info-mercials of state audubon societies, or to small and discrete charities with their own agendas.
These false claims are clearly material and important to consumers, in this case donors, who believe they are contributing to the “premier conservation event” in North America, and is likely to mislead consumers acting responsibly with their money. Everyone so concerned wants to contribute when each dollar raised supports preserving critical habitat, but might balk at the thought of merely paying for the director of CMBO’s next trip to the Antarctic, or the Director of Bird Programs current trip to Texas, where he is busily scouting for birds here in NJ apparently.
Now this sort of hype is nothing new, and is just what we’ve come to expect from CMBO ever since it transmogrified (as Calvin would say) from a Research organization to a retail and marketing firm & stationary bird-tour company.
However I was truly, and even further impressed by reading just how much and how dilligently CMBO’s Director of Bird Programs is out in the field scouting to raise money for conservation in NJ, and NJAS’ upcoming fund-raiser. And that this effort to raise funds, of which each and every cent goes to preserving critical bird habitat, don’t you know, might cause delays in the timely dissemination of natural history information.
“As the WSB draws near, scouting becomes extremely intense. We (being Don, Tom and myself) will do our best to keep you as up to date with sightings as we can while still trying to spend as much time as possible in the field. Please pardon any delays that may happen during this time as we do our bets to raise as much funding for our conservation, research and eduction mission as possible.”
I guess time spent in the field in Texas playing at the Texas Birding Classic is considered doing his “bets” to raise money for NJAS and preserve critical bird habitat in NJ. I hope he was off the clock, and none of the $8 million raised, all of which preserved critical bird habitat, was used to fund this trip, while donors were being convinced that he was furthering the “Conservation, research and eduction[sic] mission” of NJAS.
This statement, which appeared yesterday on the infomercial being paid for by that $8 Million, of which each and every cent preserved critical bird habitat, was clearly intended to mislead donors into thinking that the Director of Bird Programs was too busy fund-raising for NJAS, via the WSB to write, when in fact, he was in Texas the past week, getting paid to “play big-day”.
Aside from what the FTC considers necessary to constitute truth in advertising, there are certain guidelines in NJ Law by which actions may be considered fraudulent. They are as follows:
“(1) [a] material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by defendant of its falsity; (3) an intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and (5) resulting harm.”
(1)The facts of the scouting efforts of CMBO were clearly misrepresented on their blog. (2)The writer was in complete knowledge of the true whereabouts and activities of the Director of Bird Programs, and reason for any delays in posting information when he wrote it. (3) The intention was that donors rely on the false information of the efforts being falsely claimed to continue donating to “Team Zeiss”. (4) The donors, who believe that finding each bird contributes to the mission of NJAS, reasonably rely upon that false claim-no one wants to donate to a self-promotional slacker birding in Texas while he should be researching, educating upon, or conserving birds in NJ, or who happens to be on a team that consistently looses, but everyone wants to contribute to a busy little bee, hard at work supporting a charity; and finally (5) The harm done in these claims is suffered by the birds and environment in NJ and those duped into donating on their and its behalf, to a conservation-dollar draining and mismanaged lobby going under the name of the New Jersey Audubon Society.
CJV
Comments
5 Comments so far
Chris- interesting post, very thought-provoking. Your posts don’t go overlooked, and keep relatively “newer birders to the Cape May scene” like me from being easily swayed to certain organizations, and what they claim to be doing. Thanks.
Matt W
You are indeed a brave soul! & Yup, a gad-fly is good thing if I don’t mind saying so myself.
There are entire barns full of misrepresentations that have occurred around here since the tenure of the previous Director of CMBO-who steered the organization in a very good, and very different direction. Much factual information and study came out of the place then, covering ground from the natural history of birds to the economics of eco-toursim, some of it ground-breaking. (And some of it recently taken credit for by the present tenants, as per the well established M.O.)
What I find to be most interesting, however is how the present CMBO tries to project an image of representing the birding community at large, when in fact they are merely the corporation taking advantage of that community. Many of the more prominent birders around here want very little to do with the organization in fact.
You also have no idea just how many people have come out of the woodwork with horror stories of underhandedness coming from the present “regime”, and from varied and surprising quarters. It is overwhelming, and makes me realize just how valuable is the lesson taught in the parable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Though, I have to admit having a lot more empathy for Karen Silkwood or Erin Brokovich of late! Those who wittingly are getting one over on the public, and laughing all the way to the bank, tend to think it within their purview to crush those who say “Wait a minute, that ain’t necessarily so…” like so many bugs.
Or at least try to with limited success!
thanks for the note-many other encouraging words have been received more privately, and I do admire your public forthrightness.
“Discussion keeps a house alive”
E.M. Forster.
CJV
[…] 19 mai 2008 · No Comments Truth in advertising? : birdcapemay.net According to the Federal Trade Commission Act these following rules apply: • Advertising must be […]
Chris,
I find it interesting that you leave another diatribe as a comment to your own diatribe??????
-Tom M.
Thank you for the interest, glad to be of service.