Balance in Regulating Ads

In the millions of television ads that have flowed into American homes in the last half-century, some advertisers have promised more than their products can deliver. And now that many consumers must select vendors for commodities like electricity and long-distance phone service that can’t be taken for a test ride before purchase, the chances of being bamboozled have arguably increased.

To underscore that point, the Center for Science in the Public Interest presented its Lemon Awards last week, marking 1998’s “most misleading, unfair and irresponsible advertisements.” A typical Lemon went to the long-distance phone service 10-10-321 for promising that consumers using that number will “save 50%.” The science center faulted the ad for failing to indicate 50% of what, and for not disclosing that the service is owned by MCI, which offers other, lower rates.

Washington’s advertising watchdog is the Federal Trade Commission, which some at the science center, alleging lax oversight, dub the “Federal Trade Omission.” They’re right. Sharper regulation is needed.

However, consumer advocates seeking tougher limitations on advertisers’ freedom of speech often underestimate the American public. For instance, the Lemon Awards humorlessly upbraided Miller Brewing Co. for an ad showing men playing with a pet dog and proclaiming that Miller Lite is “man’s other best friend.” Come on, who would take that ad literally?

There is wisdom in FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky’s observation that “unnecessary restraints on truthful advertising can be as harmful to consumers as deceptive or unfair advertising.” The watchword remains “Buyer beware.”