'As seen on TV' claims can't be made about unbranded props Companies cannot claim that the product they are advertising is '... as seen on TV ' or '... as seen in' certain publications if those products merely featured as unbranded props in programmes or in paid-for ads in those mediums, an ad body has said. The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) said it could be misleading for …
I think the last (and only) thing I ever owned that even BOTHERED to put "As Seen On TV" on it was a small children's toy that I won when I was young. It was basically two handheld nets and a ball that you bounced between them, like a reverse tennis. God knows WHERE it was seen on TV, but that was the 80's in Wales, so it could have been anything from Fun House to some obscure advert that only played on Welsh TV.
Do people actually CARE about something being on TV any more? Maybe in the 50's that was some claim but today? Really? Hell, getting on QVC would probably still qualify you but even then - that's hardly a sign of a quality product that I'd feel the need to shout about on the packaging or would influence my decision as a buyer.
iPad - as seen on TV! Yeah, that'll make a big upward spike in their sales, that will.
It's almost as ridiculous as a product having on its packaging "As seen on the Internet!".
In twenty years time when those programmes are repeated, the young people of that future generation will piss themselves with laughter at how bloody stupid and primitive those old fondleslab thingies look to them. It's the same as how I nearly wet myself at footage of yuppies using mobile brick phones when ever I see some documentary about how shit the 80s was!
Huh, does 'as Seen On TV' actually mean something? Everything is on TV these days. Most channels devote 10% - 20% of their time to showing various products that you can buy. How does this sticker somehow make any difference? Are people specifically buying things because the same product has been shown on television at some point? If so I think time should be devoted to analysing and restricting those morons instead of the advertising.
Like many others here, I just thought it meant it had been on TV somewhere.
I'd be more interested in the ASA properly enforcing terms like "natural" (literally: occurs in nature) or "king size" (Which king? Henry VIII was 5'2" in his socks; why isn't my King Size Mars also 5'2"?).
Maybe they could just put a disclaimer on the bottom of all adverts:
"Most marketing people are lying scum and most of this is probably untrue or intentionally misleading"
Or maybe I should just stay away from Bill Hicks material for a while.
Like other's I rarely see "As Seen On TV" anymore but when I was younger I always assumed (and was probably right) that it meant that they had advertised it on TV. Any brand that could afford TV advertising in the days before large-multi channel services came along had some kudos that they were a large, legitimate company if they had TV advertising.
When the satellite services came along the claim became a lot more watered down. However, I don't think it is misleading. I would never think ASOTV means "editorial reviewed and received praise on TV". Surely for that they would write Homes in Your Attic: "Best product of 2009"
Even better, at the boat show in Bristol back in (IIRC) the 1980s, there was a little one-man, outboard motor powered catamaran which was advertised with "As seen in the latest James Bond Movie!"
Well, yes, it could be seen in the background if you didn't blink at the wrong moment and were looking in right direction, but the implication was that you'd see Bond riding around on one, which certainly wasn't the case.
What does it in mean in the slightest that something was "seen on TV". It tells you nothing at all about the item in the slightest, imbues it with no qualities at all and probably only appeared on TV because someone put it there, e.g. in an infomercial. I'd be happy to see the term go.
But it's only the tip of the bullshit iceberg. Virtually every TV ad for toothpaste, pet food, fast food, clothes / dish washing liquid / tablets, hair & beauty products is filled with weasel words, misleading statements, pseudo scientific jargon, dubious computer animations, and phony baloney survey results. All to con the consumer into thinking that the product is better than it actually is.
I'd just be happy for the ASA to crack down on particular practices which are common place.
I alluded to some of them above. e.g. Oil of Olay claiming to "fight" the "7 signs of aging". What the hell does that even mean? Is it equivalent to picking a fight with 7 skinheads and getting the crap kicked out you? Why are all the women in these ads portrayed in desaturated light and soft focus if it works so well?
Or Colgate saying 80% of dentists recommend Colgate when for all anyone knows the dentist just ticked some "do you recommend Colgate" when applying for a box of free samples of toothpaste or getting doorstopped by some phone survey. It's a meaningless claim.
Or 8 or of 10 cats preferred Whiskas vs what and what were they accustomed to eating prior to this test?
And so on. Basically if they're going to claim something of a scientific or preferential nature then a url to the study should be shown on the screen so people may view it, the study itself should be of a sufficiently rigorous to eliminate bias and the advertiser should be prevented from cherry picking favourable data out of context from it. If they can't do that they shouldn't be making the claims in the first place.
Pepsi Challenge is another one:
Even today it is quoted (by independent industry observers) that people prefer Pepsi but Coke has the better brand.
However, if it is based on "The Pepsi Challenge" - when I was a kid I stood in a queue at a shopping area to take the Pepsi Challenge with a lot of other kids and noticed that they never swapped the glass around. Therefore the one on the left was always the Pepsi. It was also obvious that if you preferred the Pepsi then you got a free goody bag. If you didn't then you got nothing.
A long line of kids all went up, drank both cups and "preferred" the Pepsi. Was this then used as their statistical evidence for the Pepsi preference that exists until this day - I don't know for sure, but maybe.
There are standards and they do get applied.
The whiskers comment, for example: It's '8 out of 10 owners who expressed a preference say their cats prefer it'. So out of every 10 cat owners who express a preference to buy whiskers say they do so because their cat likes it better than whatever alternative (if any) they've tried. It also doesn't give you any indication as to what proportion of cat owners express a preference: It could be 1% for all you know, meaning only 0.8% of cats seem to prefer whiskers to alternatives. Equally, it could be 40% (if half of all cat owners express said preference). You don't know, but it should be there in some small print.
Colgate's claims are probably true, also, if you apply whatever caveat goes along with the claim.
It's all a bit of a word game: You have to listen carefully and watch for the qualifiers and caveats. They have to be present if a claim depends on them, else they break the regulations. Take a look at a billboard offering some great offer, or some flyer offering the same. Note the small print: That's where you find out such things as 'subject to availability' and 'only available on certain models', or the best one ever: 'based on our rivals most expensive charges, but we're not going to tell you that, only that they charge x for their product on one of their plans for their supreme ultra inclusive item where as we're charging much less for this not quite similar product which we're discounting heavily in the hope to get you to buy from us'.
You don't have to think like an advertiser to understand the tricks they're trying: You just have to be logical and pedantic as hell.
What are the seven signs of aging?
* Reverence for the past.
* Increasing rudeness.
* Owning a cat.
* Double incontinence.
* Owning tins of food so old they don't have a sell-by date.
* Reading the obituaries first.
* Enjoying BBC One's light entertainment.
I'm not sure how Olay helps.
As many posters have already noted, those of us with a couple of brain cells to rub together recognize it as a good flag for things to be avoided. Admittedly I do occasionally wander through the "As Seen on TV" store in the mall just to see what kind of junk they think they can make money from. It is a good time waster and generates a chuckle or two.
I'm skeptical about 'award winning' for a slightly different reason. An independent award for IT innovation went to a group who used a product produced by the sponsoring firm. All the other nominations used a rival's product, which was generally considered superior. Regardless of the merits of the winning innovation, it left the impression that the award was biased.
In the slightly earlier days of the internet (although I'm sure they still exist today) you could go to a site and ask to be considered as a nominee for their award e.g. "Tech Superior Web Gold Award". Sometimes you'd have to pay for the nomination, sometimes you'd have to pay to be considered for the'gold' nomination often they were free to be nominated.
The point being you would always get a reply back a few days later saying something along the lines of "Our editor has reviewed your site and are please to award you their Tech Superior Web Gold Award". You could then display that on your site.
All a big 'harmless' con, and each party knew it, but it could raise your profile as an "award winning" site. The developer could tell the CEO that their site has won an award.
Surely "as seen on tv" only menas that the product, possibly with a different brand name or none, was caught on camera and broadcast on a tv channel with at least one viewer? Anyway why would I want to buy something just because it had been seen on tv? As Richard 81 pointed out it could have been on Crimewatch or Rogue Traders, or Cowboy Builders for that matter.
Why not put "as heard on radio" if it was mentioned by an actor on The Archers?
At Glasgow markets I've seen boards claiming that goods are "As seen on Crimewatch UK", which might be a recommendation to some customers, if true. That would imply that they were authentic goods being fenced and not poorly made counterfeits, which would indeed be the province of Watchdog. I have bought underpants that were not exactly named Calvin Klein, e.g. "Calvins", but I don't expect anyone to be deceived or impressed any more than I was, and anyway they cover my requirements.
I have also seen home games consoles that look a bit like the recognised names in the field but clearly aren't, but might deceive a stupid purchaser.
I would have assumed that "As seen on TV" meant "This is the same product that was described in an advertisement on television, and, again, not a crude and less satisfactory imitation", but I don't mind having it cleared up.
By the way, I assume that explicit product placement cases also don't count. Specsavers
sponsors [The TV Book Club] on channel More4, so I assume the presenters are all wearing Specsavers spectacles, but those presenters are probably wearing the same spectacles for everything else they do as well - something to watch out for(if you have nothing better to do). Or maybe they just got reading glasses...
What they are saying is if its in the background scene of Inspector Morse that doesn't qualify, if its reviewed on the gadget show it does.
But I agree Unlimited is annoying. I also think the mascara ads where they put in 1pt text at the end (fuller lashes created by huge false lashes our mascara doesn't really do a thing) annoying. -I don't even use Mascara.
Many of the TV shows I don't watch*, simply have the proponents holding, driving, eating, wearing or using the "product" during the show. It's hard to know when the ads start and finish sometimes.
Apple are one of the best at this. No one, but no one, uses a PC on TV it seems.
* I see the occasional grab here and there.
"Apple are one of the best at this. No one, but no one, uses a PC on TV it seems."
Not at all true - there are plenty of non-Apple PCs used on TV, but you very very rarely get to see them without strategically placed stickers obscuring any manufacturer logos/branding.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
