Commentary

Should Automotive Commercials Be Required To Give Their Own 'Fair-Balance'?

We're all familiar with the fine print that pharmaceutical companies must include in their television commercial ads. "Rare side effects include ... " and "Do not take if you are at risk of ... " are warnings that we've heard many times -- and whether we are truly paying attention to them or not, by law, they must be included.

This law requires that product claim ads give a "fair balance" of information regarding the benefits and risks of using a particular drug. This means that the content and presentation of a drug's most important risks must be reasonably similar to the content and presentation of its benefits.

The risks included in these fair-balance warnings are not necessarily relevant for the majority of users, however; in fact, only 3% of users experience most drug-related side effects.

So how come the drug companies must still include them, when it's such a small percentage, and other companies, such as automotive manufactures, get let off the hook? Exhaust from cars is a negative effect that the vast majority of drivers have on the environment, yet it's not mentioned at all in automotive commercials! If you think about it, everyone who drives an exhaust-emitting vehicle harms the environment. So, shouldn't car commercials start including a fair-balance warning?

Furthermore, driving a car is actually the most-air polluting act an average citizen commits. Emissions from passenger vehicles continue to increase in the U.S. because vehicle use also continues to increase, and vehicles keep getting bigger. Pick-up trucks, vans and sports utility vehicles often replace smaller, lighter passenger cars.

When we think about TV vehicle ads, we picture a few different categories:

Wilderness and Escape
We are often presented with a picture of solitary, impeccable machines in wild locations. These ads sell a fantasy of fresh air and escape. But in reality, the vehicles are mostly found in suburban driveways and in traffic jams in polluted cities.

Safety
Vehicle ads have also started to include aspects of crash protection, interior comforts and overall safety as the main selling points.

Family-Friendly
There's also the Family-Friendly car commercial category, where not just parents but all family members can find their fun with a car.

And sometimes we even get all in one!

While outdoor-readiness, safety, sexiness and family-friendly aspects of vehicles are all important and welcome, we still do not get a glimpse into the harmful effects driving has on the environment.

The auto industry is not the only one to leave out negative effects -- of course, no company or brand wants to advertise their bad side. But when a product shows direct, negative effects on the environment and on people's health and well-being, how do we let it slip by?

4 comments about "Should Automotive Commercials Be Required To Give Their Own 'Fair-Balance'? ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Andy Giordano from Terri Bennett Enterprises, LLC, August 10, 2011 at 10:25 a.m.

    The basis for this argument is flawed. Pharmaceutical companies are required to post disclaimers because the drugs are dispensed to very specific individuals and the physicians who write the prescriptions do not know who specifically will affected by these drugs/ side effects. So, in the interest of full disclosure. primarily to avoid future liability, the drug companies are required to post disclaimers.

    However, everyone is exposed to car exhaust, and is aware of the harmful effects. In terms of what is being done, the federal government has established new lower limits for new vehicles emissions for all types of motor vehicles.

    If you wanted to write about the harmful effects of gas powered equipment, look no further than the lawn mowers that we push around every weekend. Because they have no exhaust system, they emit a significantly higher amount of harmful exhaust than any modern car.

    How about posting a disclaimer on the meat that we eat since the methane gas generated by the livestock in the US exceeds the amount of harmful greenhouse gasses emitted by motor vehicles.

  2. Brian Toole from One eTeam, August 10, 2011 at 10:56 a.m.

    I completely agree with Andy on this. Not only is the gas emitted by cows and other large livestock in the US greater than that of cars, but the whole global warming issue is completely falling apart. People who buy and live "green" do so primarily because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I have no problem if they choose to act this way. More power to them. But to force green living, green products, or green marketing on to the general public is not only inappropriate but a huge violation of freedom.

    I've been involved with automotive marketing for over 10 years and the whole "hybrid" / "electric" car movement is the biggest scam to come along since the sleazy used car lot and it will not last. Electricity to recharge battery powered cars is generated by fossil fuel coal plants. More electric cars on the road increases demand for electricity. More electricity means more fossil fuel for the plant and thus more emissions from the plant. In the end, we will have gained nothing. Once this point reaches critical mass, hybrids will be done. Long live the combustible engine!

  3. Patty Nolan from Nolan Creative Services, August 10, 2011 at 11:36 a.m.

    Yep ... Andy and Brian are spot on. And if you look at TV ads, they are already jammed with government-required disclaimers relating to safety, price, mpg claims, etc.

  4. Brian Toole from One eTeam, August 22, 2011 at 8:37 a.m.

    More evidence the EV segment is not working. "Citing a Lack of Usage, Costco Removes E.V. Chargers" - http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/citing-a-lack-of-usage-costco-removes-e-v-chargers/?scp=1&sq=costco%20charging%20stations&st=cse

Next story loading loading..
About the Author

,