廣告的假面
年初在媒體上看到「含酒精的漱口藥水易導致口腔癌」。看到這一則報導後，就立刻跑到浴室去看看我們家用的漱口水：OralB 在標籤上明示「不含酒精」，但是 Listerine, 標籤上大小字全看過就是沒有任何標示其成分是否含酒精。幾天後，到巷口的西藥房，詢問老闆娘：「這 Listerine 是否含酒精？」「你看看標籤嘛！」「我看過了啊，就是沒有寫所以我才會問。」「沒寫喔，那就是沒有啊！」老闆娘也不可能知道，我很明白，我只是問心安的。她大概只是要打發我吧！難道她沒看到這一則新聞嗎？
回到家，心裡十分不悅－－我就這麼被打發了，如此無力！什麼「沒寫就是沒有！」不過，就算她跟我說沒有，我也不太相信呀。就在這時我似乎有了頓悟：對啊！「沒寫就是沒有！」如果要標示沒有的成分，那麼有太多東西要標示了。「不含安非他命」、「不含古柯鹼」、「不含黃麴毒素」、「不含香灰」、「不含HIV」、「不含H1N1」、「不含汞」、「不含黃金」、「不含鑽石」...etc.根本就是我自己無知，我誤會了老闆娘！我被廠商的行銷手法愚弄了。事實上：所有的知名品牌都是不含酒精的。
Oral B 那一次行銷或許頗為成功，所以夏天，我又見到了同樣的手法。調查報告的報導出來後沒幾天 Oral B 抗菌功能的牙刷就在電視上廣告。上網找一找，發現連文字報導也是差一天而已。
調查：牙刷藏百萬菌比抹布髒小心感染敗血
中廣新聞網 (2009-06-23 19:10)
歐樂B抗菌牙刷 口腔健康新選擇
【經濟日報╱記者李至和／即時報導】 2009.06.24 01:26 pm
除此之外，在PChome的論壇「開講」裡，也有類似的假議題。請參考以下的話題，你會發現都是同一些人在不同的話題發表言論支持抗菌牙刷。
其實再仔細看看這一則所謂的「調查報告」，一點都不科學。除了Oral B之外，還有許許多多其他廣告，美其名是行銷創意，但事實上這種行為和詐騙集團沒甚麼兩樣。
美國從1980年代開始就規定：有償或有對價關係地為商品背書，推薦一定要公開這種聯結。(FTC規定自12月一日起，在部落格，推特twitter ...等發表評論，發表人必須揭露是否接受餽贈或金錢...等利益。)才不會讓消費者誤以為是真正地「呷好到相報」。我覺得台灣的消費者保護法裡應該也要有這種規定！
名家推薦、新聞報導、網友推薦、部落格文章、調查報告、經驗分享等等... 可能都只是廠商的行銷手段。
Editorial
Truth in Advertising, Offline or Online
Published: October 12, 2009
With so many advertising dollars flowing onto blogs, Facebook and Twitter, it is not surprising that the Federal Trade Commission, which is charged with protecting consumers from sneaky advertising, has turned its eye on this new medium.
Spending on consumer-generated and social-networking sites reached $1.01 billion in 2008, up 25 percent from 2007, according to PQ Media, a research firm. It is expected to grow about 20 percent this year. Much of this advertising is clearly labeled. But a lot of it is paid advertising masquerading as bona fide endorsements by celebrities, well-known bloggers and even ordinary people — honest comment, free from pecuniary considerations.
Companies have been known to make up fake people to blog about their products, such as the two “boys” concocted by Sony to pine over its PSP gaming unit in 2006. Earlier this year, a representative from Belkin offered to pay people to write positive online reviews of its products. There are commercial services to put marketers in contact with bloggers who will tout products for a fee.
pine vi. 1. 懷念,戀慕,渴望 2. 憔悴,消瘦
tout vt, vi. 1 兜售,招徠 2. 窺伺,窺探
Deceiving consumers has long been illegal. Guidelines demanding that people who endorse a product for money disclose their connections with advertisers date back to 1980 — way before the age of tweets. In 1968, an F.T.C. advisory demanded that advertorials disclose that they were advertising, not editorial. Concerned over the potential growth of deceptive advertising online, the F.T.C. amended these guidelines recently to clarify that they also apply on blogs, Twitter and other forms of online communication.
deceptive adj. 騙人的,使人上當的,不可靠的,虛偽的
The rules offline should clearly apply online. This is a matter of principle, not medium, and the new rules are not an excessive burden. The guidelines state that endorsers must disclose payments in cash or in kind from companies whose products they endorse. Telling a commentator flogging a product online to disclose commercial ties does not constitute a challenge to free speech.
2. [俚] 打敗,勝過 3. [釣] (釣魚時)在(河)中反覆投放魚線
4. 嚴厲批評
Still, regulators should tread carefully. As it enforces rules about disclosure of product endorsements on the Internet’s platforms, the F.T.C. must care not to hamstring the ability of bloggers and twitterers to report and comment about the world. To stay on the safe side, regulators should focus enforcement on the advertising companies rather than on the bloggers. Advertisers are the drivers of this new trend. The onus should be on them to ensure that blogs pitching their stuff warn readers about the commercial motivation of the endorsements.
n. 1. [解] 腿筋 2. [解] 膕肌 3. 抑制力,取締
onus n. 1. 負擔 3. 舉證責任
2. (對壞事、過錯所負的)責任;過失;污名,恥辱
lay [put] the onus on 把責任歸於…
But disclosure is a reasonable demand to make in any medium. It protects consumers and bolsters the bonds of trust between writers and their audience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/opinion/13tue2.html?ref=opinion
The article was taken from The New York Times, the copyright belongs to The New York Times Company. The New York Times is not involved with, nor endorse the production of this blog.
上一篇：政治大抵是家族事業
我很早就不相信yahoo的這種報導，有時候根本是小題大作，請問你要怎麼刷牙才能刷到感染敗血呢? 牙刷十年不換 浴室潮濕陰暗 嘴巴有傷口 ，要感染敗血沒那麼容易吧 有些事情不是莫名其妙的出來，而是你自己讓他那麼嚴重，要提醒大眾因為漱口水得口腔癌還不如提醒大眾不要抽菸 =_=