Contemporary Advertising 14th Edition by William Arens ,Michael Weigold ,Christian Arens

تمرين 1

Many of us have probably received an envelope in the mail with the phrase "You Are a Winner!" or something similar, plastered in large, bold type behind the front window. And perhaps, for a split second you believed that you had won the $100,000 prize. Then you discovered the disclosure, in such small print that you overlooked it at first glance, telling you otherwise. Believe it or not, there have been some who didn't notice the disclosure and traveled to the sweepstakes' headquarters believing that they had won the jackpot. Similarly, others were misled into believing that purchasing advertised products would increase their chances of winning, so they spent thousands of dollars each in magazine subscriptions. Were these people deceived?
Until recently, this is how many sweepstakes were pitched to consumers. According to the Direct Marketing Association, sweepstakes are, by definition, "an advertising or promotional device by which items of value (prizes) are awarded to participating consumers by chance, with no purchase or 'entry fee' required in order to win." However, by entering a sweepstakes you are volunteering your name, address, and possible tastes in the advertised product to be put on lists for other direct marketers to acquire. In turn you are offered a chance to win what seems like easy money. For years it was difficult for recipients to tell whether or not they had a winning entry. With statements claiming "You are a winner," simulated checks, and material resembling communications from the government, the line separating promotion and deception became very thin.
All of this changed in 2000. Following investigations of sweepstakes firms in more than 40 states, numerous state regulators brought three of the biggest sweeps marketers-Publisher's Clearing House (PCFH), Time Inc., and U.S. Sales Corp.-to court, alleging that the marketing giants conducted deceptive sweepstakes promotions. In California alone, state officials claimed that 5,000 consumers spent more than $2,500 each a year in unnecessary magazine subscriptions through PCFH because they believed that it improved their odds of winning. Accusations were similar for all three companies, and each defended their marketing practices claiming they always believed their mailings were clear. One PCH spokesperson stated that 98 percent of the consumers who purchased magazines through their promotions were spending less than $300 a year. However, because litigation in so many states-47 in Time Inc.'s case-would have been too costly, each company decided to settle and agreed to reform its practices. Combined, the three marketers refunded more than $50 million in fines and restitution to state regulators and consumers who excessively purchased unnecessary magazines.
The reforms these companies agreed to were in accord with the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act that became effective in April 2000. The act changed how direct-mail sweepstakes are presented and packaged. Some of the most significant changes included abandoning any "winner" proclamations unless the recipient had truly won a prize, and displaying a "fact box" that "clearly and conspicuously" explained all the terms and rules of the sweepstakes, including the odds of winning. Each mailing was also required to include the statements "No purchase is necessary to enter" and "A purchase does not improve your chances of winning" in boldfaced capital letters in the mailing, in the rules, and on the order/entry form itself. In addition, each company is required to include a statement providing an address or toll-free number where recipients can either write or call to have their name and addresses removed from their mailing lists.
Does this mean the end to sweepstakes Probably not, since many people seem to jump at the chance to strike it rich for the cost of a stamp.
How much harm, if any, are sweepstakes really causing Isn't part of promotion getting consumers to believe that they want what is being advertised Without question, the ethical issues involved are complicated, but at least now you won't have to read the fine print to get the whole story.
Are sweepstakes companies really at fault for misleading their consumers Why or why not?