$13m lawsuit proves Red Bull doesn't give you wings

[Big Frank]

Nuisance lawsuits are just that. Use to be that advertising claims (such as this one) were judged by whether a reasonable person would not understand the hyperbole. I contend that no reasonable person can misunderstand their advertising.

I believe that is still a rule of thumb in most Western countries (in underdeveloped countries the rules are far more lax, to the delight of Western advertisers). However, that does not take into account the hundreds of times that that message is hammered at us from all directions. If you tell an intelligent child enough times that she is dumb and nothing in her environment tells her the opposite, then she will start to believe that she is dumb. That is the basic premise of advertising. And since many intelligent children are borne into families where institutionalised stupidity and reliance on reality TV reigns, the odds are against that child getting a balanced view of the value of the products being hammered at her. That's why taking a stand against Red Bull is important. If you want to indulge in the fantasy of "advertising is harmless" then be my guess. The odds are you believe drinking milk is both normal and good for you. If that is the case, thank advertising, not science.

But if you and Frank want to indulge in the fantasy that such suits serve the public interest, well, it is your right to do so.

I'll happily indulge in the fantasy all day long that anything that lessens the vice-like grip of advertisers on man and his dependants can only be a massive step forward for humanity.

There is a TV commercial on here in the US that shows how the people who sleep there gain extra-intelligence.

Hey, good luck with that... god knows America needs more intelligence. The French are just as stupid and gullible as any other nationality. They just get hammered by less (in quantity and perniciousness) advertising than Americans do.

Bottled drinking water. Please don't get me started on that one.

[Gamerprinter]

I also have to agree with Big Frank here, rather than mwenz on the point that advertising is part of the ruin of intellect, and requires some kind of maiming to prevent its overly powerful influence on society. If that means socalled frivolous law suits against them should be pre-eminent, I'm fine with that. While I don't want frivolous law suits to run amok, since big corporate advertising to a large degree is one big lie, I don't think this example is frivolous at all.

Not all business advertising are lies, at least not most small businesses. I've created advertising for my little graphics shop, but the promoted concepts are touching upon what unique services I provide. I've never lied in advertising I've done for my company - why can't big business try to do the same?

[mwenz]

OK. My last post in this thread.

I could care less whom agrees with whom. Advertising ruins absolutely nothing. It (advertising) cannot change anyone's intellect.

The person who sought untold sums of money is wrong. It (this attitude) of wanton suing is part of what is wrong with society. Personally, I think Red Bull made a silk purse out of a pig's ear here...and more power to them for choosing this path. They would have never been able to devise an advertising campaign for any amount of money for the advertising this generated. Heck, they paid out pennies on the dollar. Pretty smart.

While some may be too thick to realize it, or perhaps don't care, we all pay for frivolous lawsuits. Every day we spend any money, part of those dollars or cents go to fund frivolous lawsuits.

That is not to say that advertisers shouldn't be held accountable and, if cause is found, the regulatory bodies who oversee such claims should order the change. I believe these regulatory bodies ought to review advertising at the start of a lawsuit for such crap. Only if the advertising is found culpable should the lawsuit proceed...else it should get the toss.

[Gamerprinter]

I agree that regulatory bodies should be the ones to curb reckless advertising, and not frivolous lawsuits, but due to overly powerful lobbying groups, I don't see that happening unless governments have a serious change in attitude towards them.

[Big Frank]

The courtroom concept of "the reasonable man" is completely out of touch with reality. Advertising should be true, period. When it makes allusions to concepts that could easily be misinterpreted by the stupid at whom it is aimed, then it should be reigned in with heavy penalties for transgressors. Regulatory bodies have no million-dollar lobby groups and until they do they will be harassed, attacked and set upon by those who do and whose only interest is to make a buck and damn the consequences.

Advertising largely pays for the TV that we watch. I'm simply insisting that if a face cream is advertised as "scientifically proven" then that should make absolutely clear that the laboratory was a sponsored one and on a token sample of just 30 women. And even then millions of gullible women seeking eternal youth will buy this incredibly expensive cream on the basis of that completely unscientific test. Go figure.

[Gamerprinter]

Advertising largely pays for the TV that we watch. I'm simply insisting that if a face cream is advertised as "scientifically proven" then that should make absolutely clear that the laboratory was a sponsored one and on a token sample of just 30 women. And even then millions of gullible women seeking eternal youth will buy this incredibly expensive cream on the basis of that completely unscientific test. Go figure.

Its like lots of advertising for all kinds of products that are stated to be "clinically proven" - what exactly does "clinically proven" mean? I find that it often means absolutely nothing, almost to the point that any product that states this is so, means look elsewhere for a different, but similar product that doesn't make such a claim or applies some verifiable proof.

[Egg Bramhill]

Along the same lines ...

The well-known advertising slogan for Whiskas was "eight out of ten owners said their cat prefers it". After a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, this had to be changed to "eight out of ten owners who expressed a preference said their cat prefers it".

I doubt even that!

Source

[Big Frank]

"eight out of ten owners who were then promised a case of Whuskas a month for a year and expressed a preference said their cat prefers it".

[tizianogrifoni]

Don't drink RedBull. I rather keep my body and mind healthy

________________________
Pilates for health

[ankhor]

What a lie, they tried red bull on a certain lady product (they use it every month) and see it now has wings. ;o)