Expert endorsements, the FTC and Dr. Pepper

By Alan Graner

Dr. Pepper has run a series of ads featuring Dr. J, Dr. Love, Dr. Dre and others. All of them extol the joys of drinking Dr. Pepper. Then, looking straight at the audience, each declares “Trust me. I’m a doctor.”

Wait a minute! These guys aren’t real doctors. Aren’t these ads deceptive?

No. The ads are obviously a spoof, and anyone who thinks these are real doctors needs a real doctor.

Which begs the question: who exactly is an “expert”?

According to the FTC Guidelines, someone with proven credentials regarding the product.

 The FTC defines expert endorsements

On December 1, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published its Guides Concerning the use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, its first update since the 1980 Guides. However, these are guides, not laws. It’s up to the FTC to determine what an endorsement is and whether it violates the Guides.

The Federal Trade Commission defines an endorsement as basically any advertising message that consumers believe truly reflect the endorser’s opinions and experiences. The FTC Guides considers testimonials the same as endorsements.

According to Section 255.3 of the Guide:

(a) An expert endorser must have the qualifications regarding the endorsement message.

A man endorsing the Mighty Widget is identified as an engineer. The natural assumption is he has the qualifications to give expert Widget analyses. Fine. But if he’s really an automotive engineer or a chemical engineer or any engineer without extensive knowledge of widgetry? In that case the ad is deceptive.

(b) An expert endorser must be qualified to evaluate a product or service. The evaluation must include sufficient product testing to support the ad’s conclusions.

“The Mighty Widget is endorsed by American Widget Testing Labs (AWTL).” Sounds impressive, no? In the past, however, the AWTL could be owned by the widget industry or a manufacturer. It could even have endorsed widgets for a fee. That is deceptive. To be a legitimate endorser today, the AWTL must be a bona fide independent testing organization with the expertise to accurately evaluate widgets.

If the endorsement is based on an expert comparison, it must be apples to apples.

After XYZ Hospital evaluated and compared non-prescription drugs, they recommend Brand A. Terrific. However, if they selected Brand A because of its packaging, and the packaging is only available to hospitals and not the general public, the endorsement is deceptive.

If the expert claims your product is superior, she must in fact have found such a superiority over comparable products. If Dr. Smith claims your drug lowers cholesterol by 50 points based on letters from very satisfied customers rather than from hard scientific data,  it’s considered deceptive…even though the letters are true. Anecdotal evidence does not supplant scientific evidence.

255.4 Endorsements by organizations

An organization’s opinion must represent the group as a whole and must fairly reflect the collective judgment. If it’s an expert organization, the product must  be evaluated by recognized experts or by compliance with the organization’s standards.

What are your experiences with expert endorsements?

Image: Nizardp

Alan Graner is Chief Creative Officer at Daly-Swartz Public Relations, an Orange County, CA marketing communications firm. For honest endorsements and testimonials that don’t violate FTC Guides, email Jeffrey Swartz at jeffreyswartz@dsprel.com.