Before receiving his Ph. Though Preston had officially studied communication arts, earning a B. Colleague James Baughman, professor and former chair of the program, noted that Preston spent many non-teaching days in the law school.
Though the law assumed that consumers could make sense of these claims, Preston deemed the statements patently unethical. Cognitive research has backed up his claims percent. Preston frequently served as consultant and expert witness in advertising litigation, for both government agencies and advertisers. A fellow of the American Academy of Advertising, Preston was honored three times and, inserved as its president.
He also received the Paul L. Deutschmann Award from the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, one of the top honors in journalism education.
He was a wonderful mentor and teacher. I miss him. University of Wisconsin—Madison.
Preston, professor and anti-puffery crusader, dies at 79 March 3, By Susannah Brooks. Share via Facebook. Share via Twitter. Share via Linked In.Blatant Display of Poofery!
Share via Email.Pizza Hut Inc. Louisville, Ky. Unsubstantiated superlatives have been a staple in American advertising since the late s, when newspapers and magazines were chock-full of advertisements for elixirs and other products with dubious benefits.
Many businesses long have used puffery to tout their products. Advertisers are reticent to talk on the record about whether their slogans might be endangered. As an example Preston cited a case in which E-Loan Inc. The New Orleans hearing marks the third time the pizzerias have faced off.
The Great American Blow-Up: Puffery in Advertising and Selling
The case is being closely followed by the advertising world. David Versfelt, a New York attorney who specializes in advertising law, said some advertisers will be careful in making claims that their products are superior. Hal Shoup, who heads the Washington office of the American Assn. The war appears to be far from over. Patent and Trademark Office. Hot Property. About Us. Brand Publishing. Times News Platforms. Times Store. Facebook Twitter Show more sharing options Share Close extra sharing options.
April 2, Davan Maharaj.
He was let go during an organizational restructuring in August along with other senior leaders. Maharaj was named editor in December He had been managing editor since Maywith oversight of the news departments. He was responsible for shaping coverage, deploying people and overseeing personnel decisions with the editor. Maharaj has been an assistant foreign editor and, in Business, served as a deputy editor before assuming leadership of the department last year.
It also redesigned its Sunday section to focus on personal finances.If you are a student who has a disability that prevents you from using this book in printed form, BiblioVault may be able to supply you with an electronic file for alternative access. Please have the disability coordinator at your school fill out this form. Selling Wander U6P68 Dewey Decimal Classification Preston examines in detail the role of laws and the Federal Trade Commission in ensuring fair representation of goods and services to consumers.
In a new concluding chapter, Preston describes and assesses developments in the field of advertising from the mid—s to the present. He has been honored three times by the American Academy of Advertising, most recently by being elected its president.
Reasonable Consumers or Other Consumers? How the FTC Decides. Puffing with Social and Psychological Claims. Puffing with Literally Misdescriptive Names. Puffery's Immunity Should Be Eliminated. It can take weeks for requests to be filled. Selling See other titles from University of Wisconsin Press.
How does advertising really work? The Roots of Sellerism 5. How the FTC Decides Puffing with Social and Psychological Claims Puffing with Literally Misdescriptive Names Puffing with Mock-Ups What can an advertiser do who's pressed to provide substantiating facts for a claim and knows he hasn't any?
If he can argue convincingly that the claim is only puffery, regulatory tradition says he'll be excused. The legal basis for excusing such untruths is that since everyone knows exaggerated opinion for what it is, it cannot affect anyone's decision.
It is only false; it is not deceptive. Although the possibility of falsity without deception must be honored, the potential for abusing it is a concern that grows as consumerism grows. K's recall programs and should not be used as a primary advertising theme. The decision suggested that while an absence of supporting facts was permissible with puffery, there must also be an absence of contradicting facts. The rejection is not binding at law; the N.
Should the Federal Trade Commission take an equally strong step, the linking of puffery with incompatible beliefs could be a powerful development. Probably most puffery could be linked with negating beliefs and thus called deceptive if that basis were used. Steel Building Its really helped us attract and hold good people. Attracting and retaining employes depends on so many factors that the effects of any one factor may be impossible to isolate.
If charged with lack of substantiation, however, the company might say the claim was only puffery. It Was, after all, a reasonable claim that could easily, be true. General Refractories has a lower employe turnover in its new location, and new modern offices could and should contribute to this success. Exempting the claim from substantiation would not appear to harm seriously the cause of truth.
But can the claim pass the test of incompatible facts? One fact unstated was that the satisfied new renter moved not merely from another Pittsburgh building, an impression readers could readily acquire, but all the way from Philadelphia. How can anyone say what role the new building played among the awesome number of factors affecting such a move? Surely the advertiser knows, he really doesn't know Whether his claim is true.
Such consciouslack of knowledge is an incompatible fact and one that might be charged against many instances of puffery. One wonders, of course, why the law has failed to use these, grounds and has accepted instead that every buyer assumes the seller may know facts incompatible with his puffery. The advertiser could not accept this, for if the consumer rejects puffery that is accompanied by incompatible facts, there is no reason for using it.
If the consumer believes It, the law's reason for excusing it disappears. That is the ad man's Catch He defends false puffery because it's legal, but, it can be legal only because the consumer rejects it. The advertiser thus is supporting it for a reason that tells him there's no point in supporting it. A sensible reason for using false puffery could only be that it works, which would then make it illegal.
Whether puffery linked to false facts is deceptive or not may be important to the regulator, but the result seems dismal for the advertiser in either case. If it's deceptive, he's acting illegally. If it's not, he's encouraging distrust and contrubuting to a credibility gap that may lead to rejection of his true factual claims as well as his puffs. See the article in its original context from February 25,Page Buy Reprints. View on timesmachine. TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. How does advertising really work? This thoroughly revised edition of Ivan Prestons popular classic, The Great American Blow-Upprovides new examples of puffery and deceit in advertising.
Preston loved to puncture advertising puffery
Preston examines in detail the role of laws and the Federal Trade Commission in ensuring fair representation of goods and services to consumers. In a new concluding chapter, Preston How does advertising really work?
In a new concluding chapter, Preston describes and assesses developments in the field of advertising from the mid—s to the present. Get A Copy. Paperbackpages. More Details Original Title. Other Editions 3. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews.
Showing Average rating 2.
ADVERTISING POINT OF VIEW
Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Apr 15, Sarah Jowett rated it it was ok Shelves: dads-books. He reiterates the same things over and over but in different ways, like "maybe you didnt get it the first time so ill explain it in a different way". This would have been better as an essay or something in a magazine.Preston "Ivan L.
Preston has created a definitive study sure to be cherished by consumer advocates, but one that should be read by everyone ever influenced by advertising. And that, of course, is every one of us. How does advertising really work? This thoroughly revised edition of Ivan Preston's popular classic, The Great American Blow-Upprovides new examples of puffery and deceit in advertising.
Preston examines in detail the role of laws and the Federal Trade Commission in ensuring fair representation of goods and services to consumers. Critical acclaim for the first edition.
Preston does all that one can do to make an extremely complicated subject as understandable as it can be. While the book is scholarly, it is also popularist and should find great favor with consumerists. Bernard Rosenblatt, Journal of Advertising. Rice, Boston University Law Review. Ivan L. He has been honored three times by the American Academy of Advertising, most recently by being elected its president. If you want to examine a book for possible course use, please see our Course Books page.
September pp. If you have trouble accessing any page in this web site, contact our web manager. E-mail: webmaster uwpress. Critical acclaim for the first edition "Anyone interested in or concerned about advertising, especially the regulation of false, misleading or deceptive advertising, will find this treatise valuable.
Bernard Rosenblatt, Journal of Advertising "[Preston] is a thinker and writer who has something of interest and value to tell usMOST people do not think much about truth in advertising, especially when so many ads have so little to do with fact -- like the commercials for "The Most Relaxing Classical Album in the World Ever!
But Anheuser-Busch has shown an interest in ad accuracy lately, challenging commercials from not one but two other brewers as misleading. The Miller spots featured consumers comparing beers and said the Miller beers had more flavor. Anheuser-Busch said the results were flawed.
The bickering over beer commercials shines a spotlight on marketers' concern for truth in advertising, particularly when it comes to their competitors. Although most consumers would not know it, companies frequently snipe at each other over accuracy in little-publicized but potentially important disputes when they think their interests are at stake.
Executives at Miller and Coors said their commercials were not misleading. The National Advertising Review Council in New York, an industry group, has completed more than investigations about advertising this year.
The Council of Better Business Bureaus and three ad industry trade groups formed the review council in primarily to address consumer and government concerns.
But now three-quarters of the complaints it hears come from marketers, said James R. Guthrie, president and chief executive at the council. Guthrie said.
Battle Over Pizza Puffery Could Reshape Ad Landscape
The challengers are not always successful. The National Advertising Division of the council, where a staff of seven lawyers investigates ad claims brought to its attention, said Colgate-Palmolive had backed up its claim that Palmolive Oxy-Plus "blasts away grease faster" than Procter's Ultra Dawn.
Procter had better luck earlier this year, when it asked the advertising division to knock down GlaxoSmithKline's assertion that Super PoliGrip had the "strongest hold ever. Although consumers complain to the division less than marketers, they initiate some investigations. On Dec. Decisions by the division are recommendations and can be appealed to another unit of the review council.
But the council refers marketers that do not win appeals or do not ultimately comply with the recommendation to the Federal Trade Commission for government scrutiny. There are limits to what can be challenged, though, including sizable protections for puffery -- that is, a statement of opinion with little or no reference to demonstrable facts.
Protection for puffery stems from legal precedents that go back toas well as from the sense that most people ignore such entirely unverifiable claims, he said. In June, for example, the National Advertising Division decided that ads for Hunt's tomato products, sold by ConAgra Foods, could say, "Only the best tomatoes grow up to be Hunt's," because the statement qualified as "nonactionable puffery.
Consumers actually have a variety of responses to puffery, Mr. Preston argued. Other marketers avoid truth challenges by building brand identities around aspiration or identification.
In criticizing the Miller and Coors commercials, Anheuser-Busch asserted that that they had made specific, unsubstantiated taste claims. Bob Mikulay, senior vice president for marketing at Miller, part of SAB Miller, said in a memorandum to distributors, "The networks were not commenting on our taste claims themselves, but merely saying that some of the commercials could be misinterpreted as making additional claims.
One network, Fox, did not respond to Anheuser-Busch's complaint. Kabira Hatland, a spokeswoman at Coors in Golden, Colo. Coors decided to pull the spots -- several versions of the same basic commercial -- after word of the challenge by Anheuser-Busch began spreading, not because the spots were false, Ms.