Sprint claims that its "Most Powerful Network" claim is "Puffery"so no substantiation is required.

"Cingular said it complained to Sprint about the ads and Sprint
responded by saying that its claim was ``puffery" and did not require
substantiation. In a legal context, puffery is advertising content that
no reasonable consumer would rely on as a fact."

"http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/28/wireless_carriers_take_network_ad_claims_to_court/"
(holy_fool_69@yahoo.com and bugmenot)

I had never heard the word "puffery" in that manner. Net: it is a sad
reflection on American business tactics. We've come to know that car
dealers invoice price has no relevance, and now we know that "most powerful
network" has no relevance either. Sad that we can't win customers over with
truth, quality and good value for their money. Not saying that any carrier
isn't good value, as that is personal choice. But if you spend your
advertising dollar trying to build market share with "puffery" isn't that
just bold-face "nothing" hoping the stupid consumer (someone that doesn't
know what puffery is, like me) will in fact believe it? dr.
--
dr.news //stores.ebay.com/better-price-wireless (not better than you
deserve, just more than you're used to) //free.better-price.biz (for new
lines of wireless service; all carriers; the phones are almost always a
better-price)

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:447a7c3a$0$96924$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> "Cingular said it complained to Sprint about the ads and Sprint responded
> by saying that its claim was ``puffery" and did not require
> substantiation. In a legal context, puffery is advertising content that no
> reasonable consumer would rely on as a fact."
>
> "http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/28/wireless_carriers_take_network_ad_claims_to_court/"
> (holy_fool_69@yahoo.com and bugmenot)

dr.news wrote:
> I had never heard the word "puffery" in that manner. Net: it is a sad
> reflection on American business tactics. We've come to know that car
> dealers invoice price has no relevance, and now we know that "most powerful
> network" has no relevance either. Sad that we can't win customers over with
> truth, quality and good value for their money. Not saying that any carrier
> isn't good value, as that is personal choice. But if you spend your
> advertising dollar trying to build market share with "puffery" isn't that
> just bold-face "nothing" hoping the stupid consumer (someone that doesn't
> know what puffery is, like me) will in fact believe it? dr.

"You're in Good Hands with Allstate"
"Sprint has the most powerful network"
"Milk, it does a body good"
"Coke, it's the Real Thing"

None of it means anything. Does anyone believe any of those ad slogans?

Milk is actually not very good for your body, other sodas are equally as
real as Coke, "powerful" could mean a lot of different things, and
you're not really in Allstate's hands.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:448230f0$0$96946$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> dr.news wrote:

> "You're in Good Hands with Allstate"

Bad example. No superlative. (best, strongest, longest lasting, etc.)

> "Milk, it does a body good"

Bad example. No superlative. This is NOT puffery and in fact, has
actually been the subject of FDA scrutiny. It's largely been replaced by
"Got Milk?".

> "Coke, it's the Real Thing"

Bad example. No superlative.

> None of it means anything. Does anyone believe any of those ad
> slogans?

Puffery has nothing to do with meaning. It has to do with whether a
reasonable person would believe the claim as truth and whether the claim
is measurable.

"We make the best pancakes in the world"

No reasonable person would believe this and it's clearly not measurable.
That's puffery.

> Milk is actually not very good for your body, other sodas are equally
> as real as Coke, "powerful" could mean a lot of different things, and
> you're not really in Allstate's hands.

For FTC purposes, "most powerful network" is puffery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery


--
Sven Golly
Yah sure by gosh by yumpin' yiminy
Trolling as usual
Change the "_" to "." to reply by email

On 2006-06-03 11:26:51 -0400, "dr.news"
<dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-obvious> said:

> puffery

According to my dictionary, "puffery" is .....

puffery |ˈpəfərē| |ˌpəfəri| |ˌpʌf(ə)ri|
noun
exaggerated or false praise.

Sven Golly wrote:

<snip>

> "We make the best pancakes in the world"
>
> No reasonable person would believe this and it's clearly not measurable.
> That's puffery.

Just as "most powerful" in terms of a wireless phone network is not
measurable, because the statement has no meaning. They don't claim that
they have the the fewest dropped calls, the most cell sites, the best
customer service, the fastest data rates, the best voice quality, etc.
They actually explained what they meant, "Sprint Nextel says its "most
powerful" network includes the widest coverage area and the best
handsets and features."

Actually "widest coverage area" is probably true because with a tri-mode
phone on Sprint PCS, you would roam onto more non-Sprint CDMA and AMPS
networks than you would with a Verizon tri-mode phone on any of
Verizon's current calling plans (Verizon no longer allows roaming off of
their "extended network" on any currently available plans, though
subscribers with the old America's Choice plan, or National Single Rate
can still roam onto non-extended network networks). Cingular and
T-Mobile, with a GSM-only phone, have far less coverage than Sprint.

As to "best handsets and features," that's highly debatable, though
historically Sprint has had a better selection of handsets than Verizon,
but with GSM you have a much larger selection of handsets than you have
from any CDMA carrier.

I can't believe that this is all heading to court. As it turns out, the
Cingular/Telephia study for "fewest dropped calls" is from 2004
(according to one source), but in two years a lot has changed.

In alt.cellular.t-mobile dr.news <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-obvious> wrote:
> I had never heard the word "puffery" in that manner. Net: it is a sad
> reflection on American business tactics. We've come to know that car
> dealers invoice price has no relevance, and now we know that "most powerful
> network" has no relevance either. Sad that we can't win customers over with
> truth, quality and good value for their money. Not saying that any carrier
> isn't good value, as that is personal choice. But if you spend your
> advertising dollar trying to build market share with "puffery" isn't that
> just bold-face "nothing" hoping the stupid consumer (someone that doesn't
> know what puffery is, like me) will in fact believe it? dr.

It is not so different than "Digital Quality Picture" that the major Satellite
and Cable Companies like to boast. My CGA 16 color monitor from 15 years ago
was a "Digital Quality Picture".

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas, I have to disagree. It in some ways is about integrity, and the
equal and opposite position that says "buyer-beware." We've just come to
learn the difference between puffery in some industries. And the way we
learned hasn't been intuitive, but because we tested it, and it failed. To
your comment:

- most powerful network in the world: would imply that it is more powerful
than others. The word "most" implies of all of the networks, it beats them
all.

- digital quality picture says nothing. It is more a statement that since
your picture is "digital", that you will get whatever quality is associated
with the technology called "digital". Now if it was the "best digital
picture in the world" then you would be entitled to some facts.

Hey: let the buyer beware.... no one is forcing anyone to buy the product;
and the consumer is under an equal burden to do his / her own homework.
Your point is well taken; it wasn't the "best" example, but it wasn't
puffery either. dr
--
dr.news //stores.ebay.com/better-price-wireless (not better than you
deserve, just more than you're used to) //free.better-price.biz (for new
lines of wireless service; all carriers; the phones are almost always a
better-price)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9sqdnbiujJ8qqRnZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile dr.news <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-obvious>
> wrote:
>><snip>
>> Sad that we can't win customers over with
>> truth, quality and good value for their money.
<snip>

> It is not so different than "Digital Quality Picture" that the major
> Satellite
> and Cable Companies like to boast. My CGA 16 color monitor from 15 years
> ago
> was a "Digital Quality Picture".
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
>

In alt.cellular.t-mobile dr.news <dr.news@better-price.biz.delete-obvious> wrote:
> Thomas, I have to disagree. It in some ways is about integrity, and the
> equal and opposite position that says "buyer-beware." We've just come to
> learn the difference between puffery in some industries. And the way we
> learned hasn't been intuitive, but because we tested it, and it failed. To
> your comment:
>
> - most powerful network in the world: would imply that it is more powerful
> than others. The word "most" implies of all of the networks, it beats them
> all.

Yes, but describe "powerful". Describe "digital quality". The same goes for
both ... there is no definition and that is what makes it puffery. Does
powerful mean "transmission power"? Nope. Does it mean "coverage"? Nope.
Does it mean available data bandwidth? Doesn't seem to. Does it mean
technology? Nope. What does "powerful" mean?

>
> - digital quality picture says nothing. It is more a statement that since
> your picture is "digital", that you will get whatever quality is associated
> with the technology called "digital". Now if it was the "best digital
> picture in the world" then you would be entitled to some facts.
>

- Powerful says nothing. Follow-through with your analogy.

> Hey: let the buyer beware.... no one is forcing anyone to buy the product;
> and the consumer is under an equal burden to do his / her own homework.
> Your point is well taken; it wasn't the "best" example, but it wasn't
> puffery either. dr

Indeed, it is puffery.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:35:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4482fdc1$0$96957$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>I can't believe that this is all heading to court. As it turns out, the
>Cingular/Telephia study for "fewest dropped calls" is from 2004
>(according to one source), ...

A little birdie?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>