Friendly Observer
By Arthur Keefe
Honesty in advertising
I have written about honesty (or rather the lack of
it) in advertising before. I was therefore pleased to see that the domestic airlines
are now claiming to post "all in" fares instead of the previous
misleading figures. However, closer scrutiny shows there are no such things.
The addition of unspecified fuel supplements can double the
cost of some of the so-called "all in" fares. This is especially so
for regional flights.
Why is this excluded from the posted fare?
`The fuel supplement may vary over time, but the amount charged
is fixed at the time of booking, so is known at the time of advertising. This
seems to be just another ruse to mislead the public. Similarly, now that the
terminal fee in Manila is included, why is it not included at all airports?
Neither this nor the fuel supplement can be avoided and are as integral part of
the cost of flying. A genuine "all in" fare should include all such
costs. Honesty in advertising require less and, of course, has to be treated
equally by all the airlines.
A similar attempt at deception applies to the TV advertising of
so called food supplements or complementary medicines.
An advert will try to convince the viewer that a wonder drug,
or more often a naturally derived product, can prolong life or give rise to
greater strength or fitness. Sometimes this is simply by association, such as a
good-looking celebrity or athlete using the product. As most of these claims
are either completely bogus, or at best unsubstantiated by any seasonable
evidence, they have to include a disclaimer that the product has no proven
therapeutic value.
The companies get round this by a flash message at the end of
the advert which is usually too brief to read, let alone to understand. No
voice over calls attention to this important caveat.
In both the case of the airfares or the food supplement
adverts, the government have presumably tried to protect the public by
requiring this extra information. Unfortunately, as in so often the case with
well-intentioned laws or regulations here, they are observed only to the
absolute minimum and thereby they are rendered ineffective.
This is not a problem unique to the Philippines. In Europe,
strict rules of a similar nature apply to potentially misleading advertising
and companies are always playing cat and mouse, trying to exploit loopholes or
avoid the rules. The difference is that active government agencies, usually
with vigilant consumer groups supporting them, fight back and the companies end
up complying.
This could easily happen here, but instead, prevarication or
just downright non-compliance is allowed to continue. Perhaps the missing
element is active vigilant consumer groups taking-up the issue when lethargic
government fails to act.
May sayop nga gamay si Mr. Logarta kay wala mangayo ug resibo.
Ambot kon unsang pagka-unsaa kay miabot dayon ang piniyalan sa Uyking Po ug may
truck uban ang pulis aron mokuha sa mga materials, so dinhi medyo nagkalalis,
pero, ni-ingon kuno ang pulis, ayaw na ug lalis kay tingali ug makasuhan ka pa
unya. Niining bahina, kon may gamay nga sala si Mr. Logarta kay wala mangayo ug
resibo. Sad-an usab ang pulis kay unta, iya unang imbestigahon ang natabo dili
kay iyang hulga-on ug kaso.
Sus, maayo lang gani kay gamay nga truck ang nagamit sa Uyking
Po kay kon daku pa, daku gayud ang mabayad ni Mr. Logarta. Ang pait kay kadtong
nagpaila nga tig-deliver ug mga materials misibat na.
Mihangyo unta siya nga ma-uli ang kwarta bisag katunga na lang.
Unsa usab kunoy i-uli sa Uyking Po nga gidala man sa mangngingilad.
Timbang-timbanga kuno ninyo, kon kinsa ang may sayop sa bahin
ni Mr. Coling Logarta o ang Uyking Po? Kay kon ako lang, kon wala tong hinampak
nga dakung mangngingilad dili unta kini mahitabo.
Ug bahin sa pulis nga mi-responde, dapat mo-imbestigar una kon
kinsa ang dapat basulon dili kay mo-ingon basig makasuhan ka unya.
No comments:
Post a Comment