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."
The next wave in APM
Find out how to get the benefits of application monitoring while avoiding the complexity and
performance headaches.
White Papers
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Archived Audio Interviews
GE is a leader in combining connected devices and advanced analytics in pursuit of practical goals like less downtime, lower operating costs, and higher throughput. At GIO Power & Water, CIO Jim Fowler is part of the team exploring how to apply these techniques to some of the world's essential infrastructure, from power plants to water treatment systems. Join us, and bring your questions, as we talk about what's ahead.
- Featured UBM Tech Sites
- InformationWeek |
- Network Computing |
- Dr. Dobbs |
- Dark Reading
- Our Markets:
- Business Technology |
- Electronics |
- Game & App Development
- Working With Us:
- Advertising Contacts |
- Event Calendar |
- Tech Marketing Solutions |
- Corporate Site |
- Contact Us / Feedback
Tweet This
User Rank: Author
8/2/2013 | 9:03:06 PM