Follow IW:
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
re: Oracle Faces FTC Scrutiny For Trash Talk Ads
It may be that IBM's complaints have something to do with it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. Each of these investigations was triggered by requests by IBM to examine Oracle's ads. Could be in other cases rivals aren't speaking up like IBM or don't have as much clout.
re: Oracle Faces FTC Scrutiny For Trash Talk Ads
I find it interesting NAD picks on Oracle (for good reason) but seems to be blind to other vendor's false or miss leading adds. I'd like to think NAD is on the side of the consumer but the lack of consistency proves different.
re: Oracle Faces FTC Scrutiny For Trash Talk Ads
Here's more interesting insight from Linda Bean of ASRC:
"NAD refers advertising to the FTC for three reasons GÇô the company declined to participate, the company declined to abide by NADGÇÖs recommendations to modify or discontinue advertising claims, or the company participated and agreed to make recommended changes, but a follow-up review by NAD indicates the company hasnGÇÖt made a good-faith effort to comply.
We know that the FTC reviews all referrals it receives from NAD, so there is always an initial contact between the advertiser and the FTC.
There are GÇô broadly speaking GÇô four possible outcomes: 1) The company decides to return to NAD and participate in the process. 2) The company decides to abide by the terms of an NAD decision. 3) A company could decide to fight it out with the FTC. 4) The FTC could decide that pursuing a particular case doesnGÇÖt warrant the expenditure of its resources.
Interesting referral cases include:
Airborne, which was making cold-prevention
claims. NAD referred the company to the FTC in 2002. Six years later, the
company reached a $30 million settlement with the FTC.
Oreck, the vacuum cleaner company, reached a $750,000 settlement with the FTC in 2011. NAD referred the company in 2009."
"NAD refers advertising to the FTC for three reasons GÇô the company declined to participate, the company declined to abide by NADGÇÖs recommendations to modify or discontinue advertising claims, or the company participated and agreed to make recommended changes, but a follow-up review by NAD indicates the company hasnGÇÖt made a good-faith effort to comply.
We know that the FTC reviews all referrals it receives from NAD, so there is always an initial contact between the advertiser and the FTC.
There are GÇô broadly speaking GÇô four possible outcomes: 1) The company decides to return to NAD and participate in the process. 2) The company decides to abide by the terms of an NAD decision. 3) A company could decide to fight it out with the FTC. 4) The FTC could decide that pursuing a particular case doesnGÇÖt warrant the expenditure of its resources.
Interesting referral cases include:
Airborne, which was making cold-prevention
claims. NAD referred the company to the FTC in 2002. Six years later, the
company reached a $30 million settlement with the FTC.
Oreck, the vacuum cleaner company, reached a $750,000 settlement with the FTC in 2011. NAD referred the company in 2009."
How Enterprises Are Attacking the IT Security Enterprise
To learn more about what organizations are doing to tackle attacks and threats we surveyed a group of 300 IT and infosec professionals to find out what their biggest IT security challenges are and what they're doing to defend against today's threats. Download the report to see what they're saying.
White Papers
Current Issue
IT Strategies to Conquer the CloudChances are your organization is adopting cloud computing in one way or another -- or in multiple ways. Understanding the skills you need and how cloud affects IT operations and networking will help you adapt.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong 
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.
Flash Poll
- Terms of Service
- Privacy Statement
- Legal Entities
- Copyright © 2017 UBM, All rights reserved
Tweet This
User Rank: Author
8/2/2013 | 9:03:06 PM