Advertisements in the U.S. consist of motor oil maple syrup and shaving cream whipped cream. Nothing looks like they do on the package. We’ve come to expect this, but would you prefer if companies were legally required to use realm photos like they do in other countries like Japan?
Additionally, should movie studios be fined if scenes from movie trailers and promos do not appear in the final film?
Comments
>Additionally, should movie studios be fined if scenes from movie trailers and promos do not appear in the final film?
No. Trailers are often made before the finished edit of the film is completed.
I think in general, consumers support truth in advertising.
And for obvious reasons, businesses do not.
Unfortunately, commerce has organized lobbies and the power to buy politicians. Consumers do not.
>Additionally, should movie studios be fined if scenes from movie trailers and promos do not appear in the final film?
No. That’s really dumb. Usually they got cut for a good reason.
They shouldn’t be forced to use bad scenes just because they were in a trailer.
As I understood it, the actual sold product does have to be the item in question, but superfluous things that are added by the customer can be adjusted.
Not saying that is a totally valid difference, but still.
Food photographers absolutely play some games, but to a certain extent the consumer needs to not be an idiot.
>Additionally, should movie studios be fined if scenes from movie trailers and promos do not appear in the final film?
Naw. That’s pretty extreme. Again, you as the consumer need to not be a moron.
The second option would be a bit ridiculous, there’s all sorts of reasons a scene from a trailer might not make it into a film, and this could include negative reactions to a particular scene and the studio wanting to improve it. Forcing them to use a bad scene that nobody liked would be ridiculous.
As for food advertisements, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, but it’s so far down my list of priorities I wouldn’t even say it’s a good thing either. Everyone knows that the food doesn’t actually look like the ad, everyone has the ability to look up what the food actually looks like online, so who really cares?
I don’t really care. I know that whatever I’m buying isn’t going to look exactly like the package, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.
I think that they do have to use the real product that they’re selling. If they’re selling maple syrup they can’t use motor oil. But if they’re selling pancakes, they can use oil instead of syrup. Is that not correct?
Also, what’s a “real photo”?
The trailer idea seems needlessly heavy handed. It’s just entertainment.
>Advertisements in the U.S. consist of motor oil maple syrup and shaving cream whipped cream.
This hasn’t been the case in decades. There are many laws around truth in advertising and the vast majority of ads show accurate portrayals of the product. For food products, you’re legally not allowed to show anything that isn’t actually in that food item. You can prop it up a little bit and make it look better with lighting and stuff, but you can’t use fake syrup or whipped cream or whatever.
In my (admittedly limited) understanding of Japan’s truth in advertising laws, they’re pretty much the same as ours.
This is pretty far down on the list of things that concern me about the advertising industry in the United States.
I might start with “why is direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medication a thing?”
>We’ve come to expect this, but would you prefer if companies were legally required to use realm photos
I don’t care about maple syrup, motor oil, or shaving cream.
But I think fast food chains should be made to feature photos of the food they actually serve.
It’s important that ads aren’t deceptive. As long as they accomplish that, I really don’t feel like it’s necessary to micromanage how they do that.
> Additionally, should movie studios be fined if scenes from movie trailers and promos do not appear in the final film?
No, that’s ridiculous.
> would you prefer if companies were legally required to use realm photos like they do in other countries like Japan?
This is so far down the list of potential consumer protection legislation that I can’t even begin to care.
> Additionally, should movie studios be fined if scenes from movie trailers and promos do not appear in the final film?
This is even further down the list.
The truth is most of what you see in food photographs is real. FTC laws state that whatever you’re selling with a photo must be real in the image. To use a familiar example, if you’re selling corn flakes the flakes must be real. But then it gets interesting. You can use white glue instead of milk in your bowl of flakes because you’re not selling the milk, only the corn flakes. So, the product being sold must be real as-it-is-sold (albeit much more carefully styled, generally). The incidentals can be embellished. with the exception of “generic” foods. A photo on a menu of “ice cream” can be whipped lard. Generic “Breakfast ” can be anything you want to photograph to look like food. That your Big Mac looks like this not this isn’t that it isn’t “real” food, it is. But it is constructed using the best possible burger, bun, painted on sauce, precisely placed onions and pickles by a food stylist.
This is not true for food at all. The product being advertised has to be real.
Anything else in the shot can be fake. If you’re selling waffles and the shaving cream photographs better then whipped cream, using it is fine. If you’re selling whipped cream and have whipped cream in your ad, it has to be the actual product.
As a non-small island nation, we have bigger legal fish to fry than something like that
There are already laws that require this. What’s happening is that for a commercial shoot for a hamburger or other food stuff the food is prepared by a professional food stylist using high quality versions of the same ingredients. Using shaving cream for whipped cream hasn’t been allowed since the 60s.
Now, non-advertising media like a movie or tv drama can use whatever fake substitutes that look better on film because they’re not selling anything, they’re creating entertainment. That’s no different than using fake blood or computer graphics.
This is a funny question considering how common it is in Japan for restaurants to use plastic replicas to advertise their menus.
(Obviously customers are aware they are looking at plastic)
I think we need better things to focus on. I think advertisements show an ideal version, but still a reasonable one.
For those saying it has to real the food in adverts, that’s not the case. It just has to reasonably look like the real thing.
Here’s an example:
The McRib, you can use whatever you want to show the McRib… it could be 3d printed and hand painted as long as it’s a reasonable representation. Now, if you exchanged the rib pork nugget with a boneless ribeye filet, then you’d get in trouble. It doesn’t matter what it is made of as long as the representation is reasonable and accurate.
Eh, I’m not gonna be losing sleep over it. I know it doesn’t look exactly like the picture but, oh well.
Also imposing a fine for trailer/promo scenes is ridiculous. Editing and story changes can happen that results in scenes being changed or axed entirely. Like the most recent Final Destination movie, there is a scene in the trailers of one person getting their neck stuck in a rotating door making it look like they’re gonna get chocked or have their neck crushed. Completely absent from the movie because of some story changes related to the finale. They shouldn’t be punished for that.
With the Japanese law the picture on the packaging also has to be the actual size of the item inside which I find slightly more useful than the ‘this piece of orange candy looks about how you’d expect a piece of orange candy to look’ part.
Yes but it wouldn’t matter. Something that most people don’t know is that companies tend to be regulated by government contractors of their choice. The contractors get some form of permission to do this from the federal government department that overseas regulation of the industry. Then they shop around for companies to regulate, effectively becoming customers of the company they are regulating. It’s not in the contractors interest to enforce regulations too harshly as the company can just find another regulator. They have to fine just enough to look like they are doing their job and to actually avoid liability but not enough to anger their customers. The banking industry even provides office space for regulators overseeing them. Sometimes they are treated as organization employees, receiving free lunches and being invited to company events.
If a regulation violation makes the news then the actual department regulating the industry steps in. Even then the company is at little risk unless people have died that the general populace would be angered about them dying. The court costs of enforcing the regulations compared to the fines makes court a guaranteed loss, often a huge loss. Then a ‘negotiation’ occurs in which the company tells the federal government how much they are willing to pay within the fine amount boundaries. Whatever they propose is usually accepted unless there is likely to be public anger.
One example of this is a nationwide corporation was found to have systematically denied job applicants after learning their race, unless they were white. The evidence was pretty overwhelming and this is incredibly hard to prove unless they document themselves doing it. The federal government could have fined them for each instance where it was probable but after the negotiation a low four digit fine was agreed upon. After the documents were signed the company decided to go to court over it anyway. The federal government had to choose to use millions of dollars in court to collect the small fine or just conceding the issue.
No, I think they should be required to make their product as good as it looks in the commercials.
> Nothing looks like they do on the package.
I feel like this statement is a bit disingenuous.
Things don’t look like what’s on the package because they’ve been handled, not because they’re being photographed deceptively. If you took the cheeseburger off the McDonalds ad, wrapped it in paper, and dropped it down the shoot to the heated tray for another worker to pick up, put in a big, put three more burgers on top, close the bag then hand it to a customer who carries it home and dumps everything out onto the table then it would look exactly the same as the one you buy at your local McDonalds.
>Additionally, should movie studios be fined if scenes from movie trailers and promos do not appear in the final film?
Of course not. That’s ridiculous.
A lot of wonderful trailers have been made that didn’t use footage from the final film. A trailer is an advertisement to see the film, not just a collection of clips from the movie. . .you can have one without the other.
I think the japanese have it right with food packaging, tbh. They may have also had a MUCH bigger issue with product misrepresentation that necessitated it.
I don’t remember the specific law, but legally, advertisers must use the product that is being advertised, while other things in the commercial can be fake.
For example, Breyer’s advertising their vanilla ice cream in a sundae must be ice cream, but then use fake whipped cream, fake nuts, fake sauce, fake sprinkles.
McDonald’s Big Mac must be a real Big Mac, but they’re allowed to source the prettiest pieces of ingredient and place them as perfectly as possible. They can ‘front load’ the burger so all of the toppings look thick and plentiful.
I’m fine with stylized advertisements. I know that my mashed potatoes won’t be perfect when I serve them or that my Whopper might be lopsided. Who cares?
Actually this is a big misconception, companies are already required to show the actual food that they’re selling and they’re not allowed to use motor oil for example if they’re selling maple syrup. The only way that a company would be able to use motor oil for maple syrup is if they’re not selling maple syrup, like a company that sells pancakes. In that scenario they’re allowed to use motor oil because maple syrup is not what they’re selling.
Nope, not only does it not bother me, it would likely make the products more expensive.
They’ll just use editing and angles to make it look better anyway.
I think it would be a good thing for the US to borrow some of the advertisement laws that Japan has, yes. I also think that’s it’s pretty far down on the list of things to worry about and advocate for right now.
As for the movie trailers, no, unless they somehow manage to entirely misrepresent what the movie is about or it’s genre.
i mean, at this point i assume every product to be shittier than the picture. i don’t think it’s a bad idea, but given that companies here can get away with murder, there’s other regulations that need to be prioritized.
Yes I agree. The fake advertisements are just enticing ploys to get customers to buy their products. It sets customers up for disappointment when they’re mislead by fake advertising.
Just like adding harmful dyes to food products. If pictures and colors were real, customers would grow to appreciate it and accept it as normal.
I think reddit blows this out of proportion with a few outliers. Most things DO look just like the pic
Unless the ad is purposefully deceptive, I see no need for there to rules like that.
As a consumer, the real wij for the company isn’t my first purchase, but whether I purchase it again and again. If the ad is misleading I won’t buy it again a second time.
I like the Japanese rule, it seems fair and pretty easy to implement. It’s not that hard to include an actual photo of the product and size it to actual size. On the other hand, I don’t really care. I can’t think of a product where I’ve been super disappointed with the product after it not looking like what I expected from the package. Also, the law already has the real product being used in the US, so you’re arguing for something that already happens.
>Additionally, should movie studios be fined if scenes from movie trailers and promos do not appear in the final film?
That would be hard to police and prevent since trailers have to be filmed before the movie is completely filmed.
I do not find Japanese food packaging and advertisements to be all that different looking from American. It’s still extremely glammed up for the camera.
Yes, in both cases, but in terms of priorities it’s lower for me. Fines should exist as hefty hurdles that companies can just tank if they really cant see a way around it, but it should hurt.
For those whining about how all the complexities of life interfere with presentation, I do not care about your implementation concerns. Present your product as it is or be fined. If thats too difficult, don’t advertise at all, or pay the fines. Allowing fines instead of ripping you apart for it is already an extremely generous term.
If you sold your movie with a trailer for a scene that isn’t there it’s false advertising. I don’t care that you cut that scene later based on a select screening from marketing. Don’t advertise a scene you weren’t 100% on board with 6 months in advance. Or pay a nice fine. Everyone else on the production needs to plan their life around this. Maybe the writers room can try thinking ahead.
If you are selling waffles and you put any other delectable condiment in the customer’s face, you better be selling that too. Or you can pay a fine for that instead. Suck it up. We’re literally letting you cheat if you let us in on the racket. I don’t want to hear it.
I see some people saying it basically already works like that. If this is law already, great. Then I have no complaints. Apologies for my ignorance.
I guess I support such a law but I already assume advertising is mostly lies.
My favorite fake ads are hats on cats where the hat is clearly photoshopped on because the cat would never stand for it long enough to be photographed. Those are hilarious to me. Ineffective in terms of getting me to buy the product but definite entertainment value.
Yes. When I first heard about Japan’s packaging laws, my gut reaction was “typical Japan, being excessively precise and excessively controlling on situations that barely matter.” But then I thought about how normalized advertising bullshit is and I changed my mind. Anything that can enforce a little modicum of honesty out of those goddamned ad men is a benefit in my books.
I don’t get it. Why do you need a photo of the syrup when the bottle is already transparent to show the liquid inside. Like, okay, the ads on my cellphone may not show it, but it is not like I am blind when I physically pick up the bottle.
So, uh, please keep in mind that every law requires some kind of enforcement process. What would the enforcement process be for this?
Is this a situation where consumers can sue? Is it a crime prosected federally? Do we need a permitting process before the images are distributed or are we investigated reports of potential violations? How much will this process cost? Who decides what is deceptive?
I don’t think anyone wants to spend the money necessary to really crack down on this.
I believe this has actually changed. Iirc on Conan’s podcast one of the fan episodes had a guy that works in photography and film for food advertising, he said now the products can’t be fake/inedible. They still use tricks but ultimately it is regulated and I believe the days of using something like motor oil are gone.
I think the Japanese should stop writing “sore was image desu” on their packages and should be made to tell you exactly what kind of oil their using in the food.
People should just stop believing commercials.
I couldn’t care less. I avoid ads to the greatest possible extent, I don’t care if they’re honest.
I have never been to Japan so how would I know that the advertisement appeared?
ehh i dont really care abt it
If their photos matched their food, no one would eat it.
IDK about the food thing, but no, I definitely don’t think we should fine studios for putting scenes in the trailer that don’t make it into the final film.
The food one, yes.
The movie trailer one has a bit more nuance. Like, I think it should be illegal if it’s a deliberate misrepresentation, but I don’t think trailers shouldn’t be able to have any scenes at all not in the final.
Hell yea. And none of that bs disclaimer on products like “image does not reflect the actual product”.
We have real problems as a country. These are not them. We should focus on bigger things.
Even if we solved all those bigger things, picky legislation like this is a nightmare. Just passing a law doesn’t make the world instantly better. It requires enforcement which requires bureaucracy and expense, and often leads to selective enforcement due to resource constraints. That leads to disproportionate penalties to “send a message.” It’s just not worth all that. Buy a different brand of pancakes if you didn’t like the one you bought last time.
What you’re describing is not accurate any more. It used to be accurate, but it’s not currently. The laws around advertising food have changed drastically since the 1950s and 1960s and now food advertising has to be FOOD. That’s not to say that there won’t be 40 different hamburger buns (as an example) and they’ll pick the most perfect bun and individually place sesame seeds on top of the bun. Or they’ll use toothpicks to hold lettuce and tomatoes in place and not be crushed. But it’s all REAL FOOD. Styled to the nth degree by a food stylist.
(Source: Used to be a professional photographer. Done my share of food product photography.)
Absolutely for advertisements. I immediately thought of fast food ads LOL – they never look like the pictures. I don’t see a problem with movies having promos that don’t appear in the movie, though.
I wouldn’t want to go overboard with it, but the extent of badly Photoshopped images, particularly on Amazon, is getting out of hand. I think if you have a product photo with a human hand in it, you should at least be required to get the proportions correct so the product doesn’t look half the size it really is.
I don’t care about stand-ins for milk or oil or things used to make it a bit more photogenic. At least they are still staging a real photograph. I’m far more annoyed by the horrendously photoshopped product images you see when shopping online. They barely try at all and often the objects are totally out of scale with the image background. Buying things like clothing or shoes online were always a risk, but it’s so much worse than it used to be because it’s unlikely you’re going to see the actual product on an actual person in the photos. I really hate this fake ass advertising.
After looking over the current state of the US, this is what leapt out at you?
Instead of complaining about this let’s get back to those right to repair laws.
Im tired of new shit being designed to break
Re: trailers – I actually really hate it when a movie trailer contains essentially all the “good parts”. It feels like I’ve already watched the movie. When I go to actually watch the movie, the fact that all the punchline and dramatic twists were right there in the trailer makes the whole film feel like filler in between the “good paets” that i already saw weeks ago.
I think that there shouldn’t be false advertising, period. I mean that without the nuance and etc.
yes
NGL but with all the problems in the world I don’t care. I can almost kind enough to agree about the food, but I don’t care at all about the movies at all.
Sounds like a waste of time to me. It’s just an advertisement, it doesn’t have to be real like how food in TV shows don’t have to be real.
Do you have radio in Japan? Are you not allowed to advertise on the radio since you can’t show the product? What about advertising on podcasts and stuff like that?
Yeah, and in Japan, the picture of the snack on the package has to be the exact actual size.
We actually already have this.
The FTC requires that the food you’re advertising be real, which means you have to actually use what your advertising in the ad. The examples you gave are because those items are not what the image is advertising.
For instance, the motor oil on the pancakes is because they are advertising the pancakes, and to get the right look, they will use motor oil for adornment as it stands up better to studio conditions than real syrup.
The differentiator is that they only require that what you’re advertising be real; the things it’s paired with can be fake. So if you are advertising the syrup, for instance, they would Scotch Guard a pancake so it doesn’t instantly soak in, if you’re advertising cereal, they will use glue or something thicker so the cereal stays at the top.
I think this would be pointless as we already have some laws against false advertisement and people/technology got better at photography and presentation.
And I’m not sure why studios should be fine for that. By their nature, trailers are heavily edited in a way that don’t give too much information about a movie away.
Absolutely
Nope it really doesn’t matter.