A Frustrated Reader Jumps Onto The Soapbox…
By Anna Johnson on September 16th, 2008I was pushed off my soapbox today. This time by a Kikabink News subscriber with a beef about marketers using – or should I say MISusing – the word “free”…
Gregg (last name withheld to protect his privacy) emailed the following to me. I have edited the message for readability and to protect the innocent/guilty (depending on how you look at it). I offer my views at the end:
“Now, how many times have you seen something offered as ‘free’ when in fact it is not. I am 61 now and I think I know the meaning of “free” versus “buy one get one free”.
A prime example of this is [Name of Marketer withheld] who usually has some free items but, for the most part, if you read the fine print, you have signed up for something at $30 a month and so on.
‘Free’ to me does not mean ‘pay shipping and handling’. That means it costs whatever the shipping and handling is. Shipping and handling (S & H) of $9 for a disc means, to me, that the thing costs $9 and is not free. If it were truly free, send it to me without any S & H costs.
‘Free’ does not mean if I buy one of someone else’s product I get their deal free. It means to me that if I buy one, I get one free.
‘Free’ for 30,60 or 90 days if you show a credit card and bam, they slam your card when you order… is not free.
There seems to be far too much bullshit in the ads going on. I have returned items that I wanted just out of spite over this crap.”
What are your thoughts? Is Gregg right… or is he being pedantic?
Well, in many countries – certainly in Australia and I believe in the U.S. and U.K. – the law is firmly on Gregg’s side: if you say something is ‘free’ without any qualification you are implying that someone needn’t pay any money to get whatever you are offering.
Obviously I can’t give legal advice within the confines of this newsletter. I can say, however, that (as an Australian qualified lawyer) I have reviewed numerous promotional offers and advised clients that unless they clearly state any applicable qualification – e.g. that there’s a shipping and handling fee, or that a customer must buy something else to get the free product or service, or that the offer only applies under other limited circumstances – they are engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct by presenting the product or service as being ‘free’.
Do some marketers get away with saying ‘free’ when they don’t mean it? Sure they do. Government regulators have limited resources and simply can’t prosecute everyone. But sometimes it only takes a few people complaining before a regulator sets their sights on a particular marketer.
And just as ‘free’ attracts the attention of consumers… it also tends to attract the attention of consumer regulators.
Gregg has subsequently contacted me about a couple of other practices he objects to. I’ll share them with you in an upcoming issue… I’m not sure I entirely agree with his objections, but I’ll let him have his say.
What about you? Want to get something off your chest? Send it to me or feel free to comment on this (or any other) article in the newsletter.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I completely agree with Gregg. In fact, I posted a similar rant on my blog recently:
http://johnthegeek.us/jtgblog/?p=47
It’s simply disingenuous, at best, to call something “free” that clearly isn’t. At worst it’s deception. Marketers have a bad enough reputation as it is. The marketing community should be working to clean up that reputation rather than finding additional ways to justify it.
I’ve been burned by several of those “free CD” offers that turn into a $24.95 per month subscription to something. I’ve now learned to look for the fine print (it’s never obvious) that says that’s what will happen, but at least two of those instances were marketers for whom I previously had great respect and I simply didn’t expect them to stoop to that. Now they’re on the suspect list with many others. Their loss.
John The Geek
September 16th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Do I everf agree with gregg. I note that he is 61. I am a bit older thatn taht eve, So it might be a “wrinkly” thing. I don’t think so.
I have lost count of the number of times i have checked my bank statements and found a monthly debit out of my account that i did not knowingly authorise. Always a side effect of me accepting some supposed “freebie” Not forgetting the time I had to waste getting the monthly regular debit cancelled
I have only ever agreed with a certain Australian Prime Minister once/ That was when he said “there is no such thing as a free lunch”
Good one Gregg
Cheers