This is not a complaint against a host. I am just curious as to how others feel about this type of advertising, on WHT.

WHT advertising banner (http://juggler.inetinteractive.com/banners/Client836/1127501271304_MidPhase_728x90_Sep23.gif)

Just curious as to how any host can make such a claim?

What stats are used to judge who's the "The #1 Recommended Host"?

Isn't that deceptive advertising?

Should that be tolerated on WHT?

Just curious :)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
This is not a complaint against a host. I am just curious as to how others feel about this type of advertising, on WHT.

WHT advertising banner (http://juggler.inetinteractive.com/banners/Client836/1127501271304_MidPhase_728x90_Sep23.gif)

Just curious as to how any host can make such a claim?

Any one can =)

What stats are used to judge who's the "The #1 Recommended Host"?
Just make it up.

Isn't that deceptive advertising?
Yes.

Should that be tolerated on WHT?
Yes. It's advertising after all. But we do have to educate the visitors abit.
Just curious :)
We all are.


NB: some comments are sarcastic :)

Care to link to the banner?

Originally posted by UH-Matt
Care to link to the banner?

It's in Aussie Bob's post UH-Matt :)

http://juggler.inetinteractive.com/banners/Client836/1127501271304_MidPhase_728x90_Sep23.gif

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
This is not a complaint against a host. I am just curious as to how others feel about this type of advertising, on WHT. . . . Okay.

Just curious as to how any host can make such a claim? Any host 'can.'

What stats are used to judge who's the "The #1 Recommended Host"?You'd have to ask some #1 host.

Isn't that deceptive advertising?It is advertising.

Should that be tolerated on WHT?Absolutely.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should that be tolerated on WHT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely.



So it's ok for a host to advertise with deceptive or flat out incorrect information?

Sirius

Who's to say it's incorrect?

Advertising is . . . well . . . advertising.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Who's to say it's incorrect?

Advertising is . . . well . . . advertising.

No, and I agree, it's tough to say what is correct and what is incorrect, just find it kind of odd that folks are willing to write it off because it's "advertising"

Sirius

Well, the thread starter wanted to know, "how others feel about this type of advertising."

As a consumer, this type of advertising doesn't bother me.

I tend to ignore the #1 claims. Unless they're tied to another claim. Such as "#1 Recommended Host on WHT," or something.



What da heck is a consumber? :crazy:

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue

What da heck is a consumber? :crazy:


It's a consumer, who met their untimely death at the hands of a cucumber.

Sirius

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Just curious as to how any host can make such a claim?

What stats are used to judge who's the "The #1 Recommended Host"?

The answer to both questions is the same. :)

As a web host, you could ask 10 of your most satisfied clients what web host they recommend. This particular audience would recommend you, of course, and then you could advertise yourself as "The #1 Recommended Host."

Isn't that deceptive advertising?

Advertising is by nature often deceptive or unclear. I remember studying in high school how ads claiming their product is "better" or some other comparative are meaningless because they don't state what they are better or [adjective]er than. The same applies with the implied superlative in this ad. Except for perhaps our youngest members, everyone here knows how to question advertising.

If I were a web host, I wouldn't be thrilled about a competitor using that ad either. OTOH, as a consumber (hey, Dennis started it), that type of advertising doesn't have the intended effect. But that's me, and if the advertisement works for some people and those people are satisfied with what they get, I'm fine with it. :)

BTW, I haven't clicked on the banner to see who the host is.

I would have a problem with advertising that used flat-out incorrect information. But almost every host is #1 to some audience, so I don't see this ad as having misinformation.

Lois

Originally posted by reanncw
It's in Aussie Bob's post UH-Matt :)

http://juggler.inetinteractive.com/banners/Client836/1127501271304_MidPhase_728x90_Sep23.gif

Ahh... I thought he just found the underline function and it wasnt a link.

BTW, I haven't clicked on the banner to see who the host is.I did because it got my attention, the same way it got AussieBob's.

Carlsberg advertises using: "Probably the best beer in the world". With that, I have no problem, but with "The #1 Recommended host" I do.

BTW, I believe advertising is quite heavily regulated in the US, and making sure that an ad does not misrepresent information should be a top concern for all advertisers, as any claim you make, must be substatiated.

A nice link with a few FAQs: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

Yes Dan, I agree.

Of course the language in the ad is deliberately misleading. There's no question of that, no matter how much you spin and dry it. :crazy:

Noone can claim to be the "The #1 Recommended host". They could say "Arguably the #1 Recommended host", or "Probably the #1 Recommended host". That's acceptable, because there's room for movement there.

Claiming to be flat out "The #1 Recommended host", is purposely deceptive, imo, and should not be allowed to continue running that ad on WHT. Imagine Ford coming out with advertising claiming to be the "The #1 Recommended car", when there's no stats to backup such a claim. :eek3:

I very much remember that sometime ago a tire company (?) sued its competitor for claiming that they were #1 : The claim in court? We are #1 so how can they claim to be #1.

The ruiling? Judge claimed that both of them can use this phrase in their advertisements as people don't believe either of them. :)

As a marketing guy, I never use such claims in the ads that I write or supervise. One should be really exact in their marketing.

Originally posted by Lord Brar
As a marketing guy, I never use such claims in the ads that I write or supervise. One should be really exact in their marketing.
Right! There's an old saying "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

For many many years, ads that appeared a bit skewed on TV, turned me right off, to the extent that I wouldn't buy from said company ever.

I am not sure the internet is much different, or maybe it is worse as it has a very global presence. I would hope the majority of surfers could see beyond the advertising ploy and do research, no matter which company's advertisement they are looking into.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this banner as long as the host has received some sort of #1 host award from one of the various host review/directory sites. If not I'd consider it as false advertising and not just being deceptive.
Again this is all part of the game so as long as they pay for the ads, I'm sure no one at iNet will compalin :)

Originally posted by Hoobastank68
I don't think there's anything wrong with this banner as long as the host has received some sort of #1 host award from one of the various host review/directory sites. If not I'd consider it as false advertising and not just being deceptive.

As a consumer, how would you know that the host does indeed have a legit #1 recommendation unless it was in the ad? If a host receives a #1 recommendation from a respected review/directory site, promoting that fact would arguably make the ad more effective since there would be credibility behind the claim. So why not flaunt it if you’ve got it?

Originally posted by BlueJean
. . . So why not flaunt it if you’ve got it? I believe the operative word there is 'if.'

There is no indication of where they achieved their claim on the banner that's being discussed.

Right, there isn't. I was saying that IF a host received a legit recommendation, then they should promote that fact... leading to the conclusion that the banner in question has no legit recommendation backing it. Sorry if that wasn't clear -- functioning without coffee this morning :(

TV adverts nowdays are regualted, atleast in UK and any false claims can land the company a fine, I think sames should apply to WHT - if the company cannot substanciate thier claim for "lowest price" "best" "#1" "cheapest" using a FAIR medium (remember the NTL problem in UK where they were forced to change thier adverts and got fined due to talking about broadband FROM £xx, which was only true if you signed up for a year pre-pay with 24month contract).

When I first looked, it didn't bother me much. But now that I've had a chance to give it a good think; that banner, or anything like it, shouldn't be allowed.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
When I first looked, it didn't bother me much. But now that I've had a chance to give it a good think; that banner, or anything like it, shouldn't be allowed.

:banana: Yes brothers and sisters... he has SEEEEEN THE LIGHT!!! :banana:

Sirius

Thanks Dennis. :)

Now if you can focus your magical super powers, and zap that banner. :D

Is it still in rotation :)

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Is it still in rotation :)

YES, it says would you trust the #1 host still :(

Doesn't appear to be anymore - but with that said hopefully the majority of consumers look past it and investigate thoroughly.

//Deceptive advertising isn't the way to go - but hey it seems to work for some!

Originally posted by BlueJean
As a consumer, how would you know that the host does indeed have a legit #1 recommendation unless it was in the ad? If a host receives a #1 recommendation from a respected review/directory site, promoting that fact would arguably make the ad more effective since there would be credibility behind the claim. So why not flaunt it if you’ve got it?

The consumer wouldn't know, it's not their job to investigate this either but they could send an email and ask for proof. Or best scenario would be for example: iNet asking for them to show such proof when these ads are in place, for a similar example FindMyHosting requires you to fax them your business registration forms and such if you want them to display how many years you've been in business etc..

Originally posted by David
Doesn't appear to be anymore - but with that said hopefully the majority of consumers look past it and investigate thoroughly.

//Deceptive advertising isn't the way to go - but hey it seems to work for some!

It still is there according to what I see :(

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
When I first looked, it didn't bother me much. But now that I've had a chance to give it a good think; that banner, or anything like it, shouldn't be allowed.

Right on. Remember Trident Gum's original slogan, "Four out of five dentists recommend sugar-free gum." No, they couldn't back that up, so they had to make two changes. First, the slogan, now "Four out of five dentists recommend sugar-free gum for their patients who chew gum." That's a big difference, isn't it? Also, they had to put an asterisk on it. If one reads the fine print, there is additional information about the survey, including the company which conducted it.

For the banner in question to be allowed, there should have been additional information provided about where they came up with "most recommended host", but I didn't see any on their site. It's good to see that iNet has removed that banner. Now if they'd just stop allowing WebHostPlus to advertise, as every last bit of their ad copy is fraudulent. As long as they pay their bills to iNet, I guess the fact that they've ripped off hundreds of WHTers doesn't matter. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by writespeak
. . . As a web host, you could ask 10 of your most satisfied clients what web host they recommend. This particular audience would recommend you, of course, and then you could advertise yourself as "The #1 Recommended Host."
Well, you might think like that, and think it's acceptable. I do not. You can't make a claim that can't be substantiated, in advertising.
Advertising is by nature often deceptive or unclear.
If you see such ads are are "deceptive", you can report them. There are watchdogs that will call these companies to account, for "deceptive" advertising.
. . . If I were a web host, I wouldn't be thrilled about a competitor using that ad either.
From that standpoint, it doesn't worry me. I'm just concerned that a WHT member is advertising in a deliberately deceptive manner, on WHT. I am openly calling that into question.
I would have a problem with advertising that used flat-out incorrect information. But almost every host is #1 to some audience, so I don't see this ad as having misinformation.
We see things differently then. The claim is deliberately "deceptive". There's no real question of that.

BigBison - right on. :)

Its still there :(

I agree with you Aussie in that I too consider it a misleading ad.

I must add that I'm somewhat surprised by some here who think otherwise.

Actually, when I was a kid, I thought Trident had gone out and surveyed exactly five dentists. :D

Originally posted by BigBison
Actually, when I was a kid, I thought Trident had gone out and surveyed exactly five dentists. :D

Maybe they did, went and asked the 5 dentists on thier payroll, which soon became 4 after that.

Guess trademarking unlimited/unmetered wasnt enough for MidPhase, they needed this banner heh.

Originally posted by Alex Fernandez
It still is there according to what I see :(
Hmmmmm, I have seen it only twice :eek: Once by clicking the link in the first post and once as an actual banner.

Or maybe I only noticed it twice? :blush:

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
Hmmmmm, I have seen it only twice :eek: Once by clicking the link in the first post and once as an actual banner.

Or maybe I only noticed it twice? :blush:

Click refresh a few hundred times then :bawling:

So that's how you find it? You must really like the ad to waste other company's impressions just so you can see it :eek4:

I actually saw it while bowsing the forums heh, and took a screenshot of it still being there :(

Please let's not be wasting host's banner impressions, looking for that rogue ad. :uhh:

It's still in the mix, and that's something for inet to deal with, if they feel they should.

My work here is done. :wht:

Originally posted by BigBison
Remember Trident Gum's original slogan, "Four out of five dentists recommend sugar-free gum." No, they couldn't back that up, so they had to make two changes. First, the slogan, now "Four out of five dentists recommend sugar-free gum for their patients who chew gum." That's a big difference, isn't it? Also, they had to put an asterisk on it. If one reads the fine print, there is additional information about the survey, including the company which conducted it.

Ahh, that changes the situation. I vaguely remember that commercial, but I hadn't known that Trident had been required to make changes to it. If their original claim wasn't allowed, then I don't think the claim in the ad in question here should be allowed. I'd thought that that type of vague advertising was accepted.

For the banner in question to be allowed, there should have been additional information provided about where they came up with "most recommended host", but I didn't see any on their site.

Speaking of additional information, they didn't include the company name in the banner. Or if they did, I missed it. Advertising is for branding as well as for sales, and this company didn't get any branding out of this ad. (I have clicked on the ad since my last post in this thread to see who the company is, but I'm not naming the company here because I don't want to provide the branding opportunity that they overlooked.)

Aside from the type of advertising that didn't appeal to me, not including the company name was another turn-off. I like to see real information in advertising and website content, and if I have to work to find facts, I'm not interested in doing business with that company.

Lois

Originally posted by writespeak
Ahh, that changes the situation. I vaguely remember that commercial, but I hadn't known that Trident had been required to make changes to it. If their original claim wasn't allowed, then I don't think the claim in the ad in question here should be allowed.
Thank you.

There's been many ads here in Aussie that have been pulled by the advertising watchdog, for advertisers making unsubstantiated and misleading claims.
Speaking of additional information, they didn't include the company name in the banner. Or if they did, I missed it. Advertising is for branding as well as for sales . . .
This type of ad didn't have a branding componant. It was designed purely for a quick sales/click/call_to_action, with the "#1 Recommended Host" being the bait on the hook.

The host in question might be a good host, but they're not the "1 Recommended Host".

Watch some commercials by any proctor & gamble products, they make all sorts of exaggerated claims. I sorta laughed when I saw this particular banner, but consumers in general don't know any better and im sure its pretty effective :)

Actually this sort of claim is entirely legal (maybe not ethical). According to the survey (which the subjects of the survey aren't disclosed) they're the #1 reccomended host. Well, who knows who they surveyed. It could be that they surveyed their customers and asked "who is the host you would reccomend the most". Advertising is a shady business, and the sleaziest of them all usually win :)

In order for that claimt o be true Neosurge they must provide details regardign to it on thier website, which I cant see.

ooh, just noticed the new hostcatalog.com advert area with this in it

#1 Recommended Host is giving a NEW CAR!
Free Domain - 5,000MB of Space - Unmetered Bandwidth. Get Started, and be entered into a drawing for a brand new car. Get started and be entered for a chance to win a 2006 ..

Can we please finally get rid of these false advertisements? :(

Advertising is a shady business, and the sleaziest of them all usually win

I beg to disagree. :) Marketing is a proper science... advertising included.

I highly suggest that you pick and read the following books to clear this misconception :

1. Scientific Advertising by Claude Hopkins. Just search google and you will get its free download.

2. Influence, The psychology of persuation by Robert B Cialdini

3. Ogilvy on Advertising by David Ogilvy.

:)

Originally posted by Neosurge
Actually this sort of claim is entirely legal (maybe not ethical).

Really? Entirely legal? Thanks for clearing that up for us, Neosurge. It's good to know an authority like you is out there telling us the Federal Trade Commission Act no longer applies. Silly of me to think that a law that's been on the books since 1914 is still relevant in this day and age, just because it hasn't been repealed!

:rolleyes: </sarcasm>

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.

The ad in question makes an express, material claim yet offers no proof to back it up - in violation of the law.

The ad in question makes an express, material claim yet offers no proof to back it up - in violation of the law. [/B]


Has it been determined that the company does not possess this evidence?

They're supposed to have it displayed before running the ad. Back to Trident:

http://www.tridentgum.com/gum_facts.html?content=1

Look at those footnotes, backing up every claim they make. Now, I'm sure those reports are subject to interpretation, but the fact is they exist. Nobody can accuse Trident of making up their claims. The webhost in question, on the other hand...

Originally posted by BigBison
They're supposed to have it displayed before running the ad. Back to Trident:

http://www.tridentgum.com/gum_facts.html?content=1

Look at those footnotes, backing up every claim they make. Now, I'm sure those reports are subject to interpretation, but the fact is they exist. Nobody can accuse Trident of making up their claims. The webhost in question, on the other hand...

I'm not sure,


but it could be this (http://midphase.com/html_files/whyus_awards.php)

Originally posted by reanncw
I'm not sure,


but it could be this (http://midphase.com/html_files/whyus_awards.php)

I dont see anything saying any survey found them to be the no. 1 host.

Yup, I did. They know it's true because of the SITE5 banner, and the only reason they moved the ads down is to have a larger, more costly sized banner, and now they put up the DICE advertisement.

15 points for telling the truth.

I do not have anything against the mods and admins here, it's Inet that many other people have said what I posted earlier.

Originally posted by reanncw
I'm not sure,


but it could be this (http://midphase.com/html_files/whyus_awards.php) Does an award there proclaim them to be "the #1 recommended host"? Even if it would, the source should be mentioned in the ad and on the site, for it would be an organisation's opinion, not a known fact as the ad (and their site) are trying to suggest.

Originally posted by reanncw
I'm not sure,


but it could be this (http://midphase.com/html_files/whyus_awards.php)


That is certainly no indication.
Most of those awards are readily available to anyone who applies for one or anyone who spends enough advertising money.


Let's take cNet for instance. Here are some of the stringent requirements to get their award.

Resolves order problems swiftly and efficiently.

Honors prices displayed on CNET Web site* without any hassle or excuses.

Provides a fully e-commerce-enabled site. Resellers must be able to accept, process, and complete orders entirely online.

Processes orders promptly and sends e-mail confirmation and order summary within one business day of the initial order.

Responds to all customer service e-mail and phone calls within two business days.


These requirements are not exactly the "gold" standard in the industry.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

Well, you might think like that, and think it's acceptable. I do not. You can't make a claim that can't be substantiated, in advertising.
[/B]

I never made a claim to agree or to disagree with that. In fact, personally I have many problems with the advertising/marketing industry as a whole (which stems from the lack of the general consumer's intelligence about how to purchase products or services based on research).

Originally posted by blue27
That is certainly no indication.
Most of those awards are readily available to anyone who applies for one or anyone who spends enough advertising money.


Let's take cNet for instance. Here are some of the stringent requirements to get their award.



These requirements are not exactly the "gold" standard in the industry.

I know. I'm just saying stuff like that, would have allowed them to say "#1 Recommended Host". It's not like i'm saying, "yes they have these awards, therefore they are the #1 Recommended Host". I know how to seperate ********. :D

In the UK we have a trades description act which regulates things like this, I beleive.

Not sure how that works or if there is anything similar for internet advertising though :confused:

Oh, and personally I never beleive claims like this. Not without solid concrete proof to back it up anyway :rolleyes: