HP DECLINES TO ABIDE TO N.A.D ABOUT CARTRIDGE CAPASITY …..
HP DECLINES TO ABIDE TO N.A.D ABOUT CARTRIDGE CAPASITY …..
2010-11-10 at 8:41:35 am #24169
HP DECLINES TO ABIDE TO N.A.D ABOUT CARTRIDGE CAPASITY CLAIMS
NAD REFERS ADVERTISING FOR HEWLETT-PACKARD INK CARTRIDGES TO FTC FOR FURTHER REVIEW; COMPANY DECLINES TO ABIDE BY NAD DECISION
New York, New York – Nov. 2, 2010 – The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has referred advertising from Hewlett-Packard Co., to the Federal Trade Commission for further review, after the advertiser declined to accept NAD’s findings and conclusions. NAD, the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum, inquired about claims made by Hewlett- Packard on labels and in print, Internet and broadcast advertising for certain HP Inkjet printers and cartridges, following a challenge by the Eastman Kodak Company.
Claims at issue included:
“HP 564 and HP 920 cyan, magenta and yellow ink cartridges, a three color ink cartridge system which is intended for use with HP inkjet printers, including Photosmart D5460 and
Photosmart C6380, will yield 300 pages.” “HP 901 integrated color ink cartridge (CMY) will yield 360 pages and the HP 901 black ink cartridge will yield 200 pages.” “HP 60 integrated color ink cartridges (CMY) will yield 165 pages and the HP black ink cartridge will yield 200 pages.”“The #1 Ink Brand. #1 Value”/“The #1 Ink brand is the #1 Value”/“Get More Pages with HP Ink”/”Up to 65% More Pages than bargain inks.”HP C4600 and HP C5400 inkjet printers are the “world’s easiest printers to use, as chosen by consumers.”
NAD also reviewed a fifteen-second “Peacock” commercial that stated that “HP inks give you 65% more pages than bargain inks.” The HP animated peacock’s plumage is significantly larger than the “bargain ink” animated peacock’s tail. Following its review of the evidence, NAD determined that the advertiser had not provided a sufficiently reliable basis for claims related to page yield for the cartridges referenced and recommended the advertiser discontinue such claims. Further, NAD recommended that the advertiser, on its ink cartridge packaging, report page-yield claims as the combination of each tested printer and cartridges, the minimum yield of all tested printers; or the range yields from all tested printers and reference the actual printer/cartridge performance available.
NAD determined that the advertiser had provided a sufficiently reliable basis for claiming “The #1 Ink Brand is the #1 Value”/1 Brand, #1 Value”/“Get More Pages with HP Ink”/“Up to 65% More Pages than bargain inks” in its Internet and television advertising. The claims, in the contexts in which they appeared, were directed toward third-party manufacturers who refill ink cartridges. NAD did recommend, however, that the size of the peacock’s tail in the Peacock commercial be modified to better reflect the actual sixty-five percent difference.
NAD determined that the claims “The #1 Ink Brand is the #1 Value” and “1 Brand. #1 Value” – which appeared as stand-alone claims in-store pallet displays and print circulars – conveyed the message that the advertiser’s inks are the #1 value as compared to the entire ink cartridge market. NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the claims in a stand-alone manner in the context in which they appeared. Finally, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue claims that the HP C4600 and HP C5400 inkjet printers are the “world’s easiest printers to use, as chosen by consumers” because certain survey evidence was insufficiently reliable to support the unqualified superiority claim. Hewlett-Packard, in its advertiser’s statement, took issue with several of NAD’s findings and declined to accept NAD’s conclusions. Pursuant to NAD/CARU Procedures, NAD will refer the advertising at issue to the Federal Trade Commission for further review.NAD’s inquiry was conducted under NAD/CARU/NARB Procedures for the Voluntary Self-Regulation of National Advertising. Details of the initial inquiry, NAD’s decision, and the advertiser’s response will be included in the next NAD/CARU Case Report.
About Advertising Industry Self-Regulation:
The National Advertising Review Council (NARC) was formed in 1971. NARC establishes the policies and procedures for the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus,the CBBB’s Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) and the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP).The NARC Board of Directors is composed of representatives of the American Advertising Federation, Inc. (AAF), American Association of Advertising Agencies, Inc., (AAAA), the Association of National Advertisers, Inc. (ANA), Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. (CBBB), Direct Marketing Association (DMA), Electronic Retailing Association (ERA) and Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). Its purpose is to foster truth and accuracy in national advertising through voluntary self-regulation. NAD, CARU and ERSP are the investigative arms of the advertising industry’s voluntary self-regulation program. Their casework results from competitive challenges from other advertisers, and also from self-monitoring traditional and new media. NARB, the appeals body, is a peer group from which ad-hoc panels are selected to adjudicate NAD/CARU cases that are not resolved at the NAD/CARU level. This unique, self-regulatory system is funded entirely by the business community; CARU is financed by the children’s advertising industry, while NAD/NARC/NARB’s primary source of funding is derived from membership fees paid to the CBBB. ERSP’s funding is derived from membership in the Electronic Retailing Association. For more information about advertising industry self-regulation, please visit http://www.narcpartners.org.
HP’s claims about capacity of its printers, cartridges, challenged
Hewlett-Packard’s advertising claims on some of its inkjet printers and
cartridges, including a TV commercial featuring a peacock, have prompted
the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division
to ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate.
NAD, the ad industry’s self-regulatory group, looked into the issue
after HP’s competitor, Eastman Kodak Company, challenged claims HP made
on print, labels, the Internet and television.The ads make such claims as “The #1 Ink brand is the #1 Value” and “Get
More Pages with HP Ink.” Others under scrutiny have to do with the
specific number of pages a certain ink cartridge will yield. One claim
says, “Up to 65% more pages than bargain inks.”NAD says HP did not provide a “sufficiently reliable basis” for claims
related to the specific page yield of certain cartridges and recommended
the company stop making the claims.NAD also reviewed one of HP’s commercials that said “HP inks give you
65% more pages than bargain inks.” In the 15-second commercial, an
animated peacock’s tail more than doubles in size compared to the tail
of the bargain ink’s peacock.
The group found that HP’s Internet and television ads about the number
one brand and value, for example, were fine because the ads were
directed toward third-party manufacturers that refill ink cartridges.
However, it recommended HP adjust the size of the peacock tail in its
commercial to better reflect the 65% difference.NAD also found HP’s claims on in-store displays about it being the top
ink brand and number one value were misleading because they gave the
impression the company was comparing itself to the entire ink cartridge
market rather than other bargain ink jet manufacturers. NAD recommended
that HP discontinue the claims in the context they’ve been presented.
An HP company spokesperson, who asked not to be identified, e-mailed Consumer Ally in response to questions about the case.”HP respectfully disagrees with the NAD’s decision and believes the
process used in its determination was flawed in this case,” the
spokesperson wrote. “HP’s claims and testing methodologies continue to
be in full and complete compliance with the ISO industry standard. HP
provided the NAD with more than enough evidence to substantiate its
claims.”NAD says it’s now up to the FTC to determine whether it will
review the case and rule on it.