This month’s “Ugh!” question by a subscriber:
Ads for new cars are loaded with promises, but too many of the promises are tinged by asterisks. When I check the asterisks, those promises turn sour. Am I just naïve, or am I out of tune with the advertising business?
This month’s “Ugh!” answer:
We’re both out of tune … and, sadly, so are an entire universe of prospects, driven into the Age of Skepticism by omnipresent asterisks. What a shame that advertising that could succeed without slyness depends on consumer naïveté to be effective. I’m looking at an ad for 2006 Mercedes-Benz E 320 CDI diesel cars, tuned to show superiority over impossible gasoline prices. The heading says, “Passes Cars And Gas Stations With Equal Ease.”
Even if that headline had a single specific, the initial caps would have destroyed any semblance of verisimilitude. But let’s look at the way the ad’s text justifies that loose claim.
First justification: “On the one hand, the Mercedes-Benz E 320 CDI diesel can cover 0 to 60 in 6.6 seconds.*” Second justification: “On the other hand, it gets up to 37 miles per gallon and can travel up to 780 miles** without refueling.”
OK, let’s assume you can zoom out of your driveway, jumping into traffic at 60 miles an hour in 6.6 seconds. That acceleration may appeal to the Dale Earnhardt crowd but isn’t in key with getting 37 miles per gallon. Still, that claim doesn’t have a qualifier, so it’s unattackable … except for a minor hedge when we wander down to that first asterisk: “Stated rates of acceleration are based on AMCI’s test track results and may vary depending upon model, environment and road surface conditions, driving style, elevation and vehicle load.” Huh? We understand environment and road surface and those other exceptions, but “depending upon model”? The ad shows and describes the E 320 CDI Diesel. Is this, then, a generic claim, with the advertising agency’s production department pasting in the disclaimers without checking what’s being advertised?
Might be, because of that second justification. The double asterisk fits the double ugliness of the “up to 780 miles” evasion, suggesting mileage better than the most fuel-efficient hybrid: “…Maximum highway driving range based on 21.1-gallon fuel tank capacity. Your actual highway mileage will be less.” Oh. Thanks for clearing that up.
(When Mercedes-Benz bought Chrysler, I had hoped the transaction ended those smug commercials featuring Lee Iococca and his inside-out unselling tag-line, “If you can find a better car, buy it.” Ugh. My hopes were just a temporary victory. But I did find a better car and bought it. Thanks for the tip, Lee.)
OK, what would Mr. Ugh! have done?
I’m not singling out Mercedes-Benz for “Ugh” treatment because the car is overpriced and overhyped. That ad happened to be in the main news section of the paper I was reading. Not to worry … the car has lots of company. I’d have created an asterisk-free ad, trumpeting loud and strong that at last here’s an ad whose claims are clear and open and, yes, true.
Meanwhile, the asterisk flood continues to insinuate itself into reader naïveté and continues to damage reader confidence in all advertising and marketing. I dream that integrity might replace duplicity.
An impossible dream? Of course it is. But you asked.
Network
