Quote:
Originally posted by phredgreen
the questions that needs to be answered is this: regardless of who paid the bill, was the test performed as a fair and impartial comparison? if so, then good for mitsu, their product came out on top. if the study was perfomred witha bias toward a particular product, then it becomes false advertising, and that is an issue worth pursuing.
|
Precisely.
And, my concern was that since AMCI already had their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, could or *would* they have conducted an objective test? This is scarey territory to get into.
Should drug companies be allowed to present results from the advertising company's product tests? Its a bit extreme, but we'd have NyQuil for balding, Prozac for yeast infections, Nexium for depression, etc. Its a question that cuts to the core of advertising ethics. To what degree can you present results that you, as the advertiser, have generated?
I can setup an experiment in my own backyard that could prove (apparently enough to have an automotive commercial) that Toyota Tacoma trucks are better at cornering than Nissan Stanza's (not a truck, I know). The question isn't, "could I" but rather, "should I"? I'm definitely not qualified. I definitely don't know statistics, but I know who is paying me, hypothetically, to produce an ad. Its a matter of willingful deception...
How far should advertisers be allowed to push this envelope?