Void where prohibited; your mileage may vary

One of our regular online commentators, Quantumcat, posted an online comment on that column, but it was so cryptic due to her use of ellipses, I wasn't sure if she was trying to build me up or tear me down. Either one would be fine with me, but this comment was so esoteric, even I couldn't understand it.

So Quantumcat, I hope you'll explain your meaning so I can have the opportunity to possibly learn something about myself.

Continuing where I left off last week, another popular tactic that may be used by some national advertisers is the "open-ended claim."

These are statements like "50 percent more!"

Fifty percent more what? Money spent on packaging? Money spent on advertising?

Technically, if I made a candy bar, and I figured out a way to whip half again as much air into my nougat, resulting in less actual product and therefore less cost to me, I could type "50 percent more!" on the packaging, and you may assume I mean the candy bar is half again as big.

But I didn't really say that, did I? What I really said was "50 percent more air."

You just didn't have all the facts.

Here's another one: "Made with 100 percent prime beef."

This would really appeal to a consumer who understands prime to be the very best grade of beef, according to the USDA, followed in order of grade by choice, select, standard, commercial, utility, cutter and canner.

The claim above sounds great at first reading, but if you look at it a little more closely, what is it really saying?

It's saying that at least some of the beef used in the product is "100 percent prime."

But notice that it doesn't say "Made of 100 percent prime beef."

See the difference?

If I made a hamburger, and I used 9 ounces of commercial beef (four grades below prime) and one ounce of prime (the best grade), I could honestly say my burger was "made with 100 percent prime beef."

I could not say my burger was "made of 100 percent prime beef." That would be a flat-out lie, because it is made of only 10 percent prime beef, even though that 10 percent is 100 percent prime.

There would be a good chance that the ad would be pulled by the Federal Trade Commission, costing me all the money I had put into it.

So, to avoid risking my investment, I would have to be a little more cautious with my deception. The open-ended claim is a good means to that end. I want to make the consumer think they're getting something distinctly better than my competitors' products, even though my product may in fact be no better or even inferior. But I'd laugh all the way to the bank.

A variation of this is to say something like this: "No credit application will be refused."

Sure, they won't refuse the application. Their financier might refuse to give you the loan, though.

Here's another good one: Legal disclaimers -- often referred to by an asterisk, or some other symbol, and written in tiny type.

These are statements that are used set limits on a claim. Usually the claim is made in giant type, and the legal disclaimer is written in type so tiny as to be illegible. In the case of television, the legal text is usually displayed so briefly that even if you could see the letters, you would have no way of actually reading the entire message before it disappears from the screen.

Here's a fictitious example: "If you have a job, we'll sell you a Knick-Knack!*"

*For qualified buyers only. Qualified buyers must have maintained their current job for a minimum of 10 years and have good credit.

There are many other methods used to mislead consumers, including the beautiful pictures of fast food shown on TV, or the delectable-looking flakes coated with milk shown on the cereal box.

Even though the Federal Trade Commission was established with the goal of reducing these misleading claims, some marketers are expert at getting around the law using the methods listed above, and it's up to us to be wise enough to see through the deception.

I can imagine myself described by deceptive advertising claims:

"Thinner than most!"

"50 percent smarter!"

"Recommended for dates by 4 out of 5 women."

-- Legal disclaimer: The claims made in this column are not intended to be taken by the reader as scientific fact. They are only the opinion of the author, who has had very little training in marketing, but remains very opinionated. All claims above are to be considered untrue if their converse is proven to be true. No actual brands or advertising campaigns, or the companies that may or may not create similar or non-similar advertising campaigns, were referred to in this article. Any similarity to actual brands, companies, claims or advertising campaigns is purely coincidental, and by no means intended. It is up to the reader to decide if deceptive advertising actually exists and if the FTC is actually doing a good job of limiting it. John Philleo is editor of the Times-Gazette. He can be reached by e-mail at editor@t-g.com.