Few Eyes Spot TV’s Squint Print
Noel Murray has spent hours studying the fine print superimposed on the sport-utility vehicle television commercial. As part of a research project, he’s quizzed Chapman University students who’ve struggled to comprehend the flurry of words superimposed over the glitzy commercial.
Yet, even with the freeze-frame button depressed, the marketing professor still must squint to decipher caveats about the advertised vehicle’s price. Murray’s research into video supers suggests that two-thirds of consumers don’t understand what advertisers are trying to say in commercials laden with video supers.
“We know in advance that, many times, it’s impossible for people to read everything,” Murray said. “It’s supposed to be understandable for a ‘reasonable consumer.’ But even if you watch it carefully, much of what’s going on is fleeting.”
Federal and state regulators recently fined Mazda North American Operations a record $5.25 million for allegedly burying vehicle leasing information in commercials that ran in 1997 and 1998. The investigation spearheaded by the Federal Trade Commission stemmed from a wider lease advertising enforcement action in 1997 that resulted in settlements with several auto makers.
Mazda denied any wrongdoing in connection with the disputed video supers. “The most important piece of that case is that we didn’t receive one consumer complaint,” said Mazda spokesman Jay Amestoy. “And the Federal Trade Commission confirmed that there were none.”
Murray argues that marketers too often incorporate tricks of the advertising trade to accentuate information that could pique a potential buyer’s interest--and that they won’t hesitate to make it difficult for consumers to glean information that could dampen enthusiasm.
The SUV commercial, for example, prominently displays the car’s cost. But many viewers are likely to miss smaller type advising that the price tag refers to a cheaper, two-wheel drive model, not the top-of-the-line, four-wheel-drive model shown bullying through the wilderness.
Often, Murray said, positive news--such as a sale price--is superimposed over a dark background in an easy-to-read typeface. Potentially negative information--perhaps word that the deal isn’t available at all dealerships--might be relegated to small type displayed over a light background.
The FTC’s complaint against Mazda alleged that the mandated leasing information “appeared in small type, for a short duration, or were accompanied by distracting or obscuring sounds or images.” Mazda maintains that the commercials did include accessible information about leasing. And, company spokesman Amestoy added, “terms of leases during that time were among the best we’ve ever offered to consumers.”
Murray, who has reviewed hundreds of commercials, maintains that consumers would be better served if regulators allowed advertisers to refer consumers to toll-free telephone numbers, Web sites or retail outlets in lieu of small type.
FTC regulations governing video supers demand that information being flashed on the screen be “reasonably understandable” for consumers and be given “clear and conspicuous” display during commercials. Although Congress also authorized a reduction in on-screen caveats if a toll-free telephone number is advertised, few marketers have gone that route, according to the FTC.
The use of an 800 or toll-free number also has been embraced by the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates prescription drug advertising. FDA regulations allow manufacturers to refer customers to print ads and an 800 number for additional information that can’t fit in TV ads.
Murray argues that even if the type is clear, commercials aren’t a good vehicle for carrying messages about complicated leasing terms or potential health hazards associated with prescription drugs.
During commercial breaks, many viewers still are digesting information gleaned from baseball games, situation comedies or the nightly news. When commercials break, their eyes and ears naturally are drawn to the video and audio tracks--not what Murray refers to as mice type.
“Visual images are the first thing to get your attention,” Murray said. “And the voice-over typically is going to give you information that reinforces what you’re seeing on the screen.”
Reading patterns also play a role in what consumers can glean from the small type. “The normal rate of reading is somewhere between 180 to 250 words per minute, yet there are over 400 words in this [30-second SUV] commercial,” Murray said. “It’s decidedly different from sitting down with a cup of java and the newspaper, because you can’t go back and read it again at your leisure.”
The Mazda case, settled late in September, dates back to early 1997, when the car company was one of five auto makers that paid $1.9 million in fines and agreed to give lease terms more prominent display. The other companies included General Motors Corp. and the U.S. units of Mitsubishi Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Isuzu Motors Ltd. of Japan. In 1998, the FTC also signed similar agreements, without assessing fines, with Chrysler Corp., now part of DaimlerChrysler, and the U.S. subsidiaries of Japan’s Toyota Motor Corp. and Germany’s Volkswagen.
Murray argues that the regulatory effort in the auto-leasing business has borne fruit: “Chrysler has really seemed to make its supers very, very clear, and Isuzu has since had a commercial that pokes fun at other companies’ video supers.”
Although state and federal agencies mandate what needs to be included in video supers, Murray said the first level of enforcement sits with networks, each of which has its own standards. The rules mirror the FTC’s “clear and conspicuous” standard, Murray said, but networks are feeling growing pressure from cable competitors to provide “a cost-competitive and advertiser-friendly environment.”
“There’s still a level of ambiguity in the ‘clear and conspicuous’ guidelines because those words can lead to lots of problems,” Murray said. “But there’s another level of ambiguity present because the policemen here are really the networks. It’s their interpretation of what the FTC is saying that can make it difficult for advertisers--particularly if ABC is telling you something different than NBC.”
The FTC’s guidelines often aren’t as strict as what networks demand, said Lee Peeler, associate director of the FTC’s advertising practices division. “In many instances, they go beyond ours,” Peeler said. “They also address matters of suitability and taste. They also address matters of clarity.”
