LG Responds to NAD’s Stand on 3D TV Ads
LG had been involved in a straight one to one comparative advertisement campaign last year with their arch rivals Sony and Samsung on the 3D TV sets of their individual makes. LG had claimed that test results they had conducted proved that the passive technology they were using on their sets far outweighed the active technology based TV sets that Sony and Samsung were using even in the performance sector. The National Advertising Division (NAD) which is one of the sections of the Council of Better Business Bureaus had taken exception to this direct assault by LG. Jay Vandenbree, the VP of LG electronics however reiterated that their tests were authentic and therefore their conclusions too were legal.
The VP also pointed out to the dealers that the NAD had also pointed out the wrong practice that Sony had resorted to on this same issue wherein they had gone up to the dealers even while NAD had not announced its decision on this subject.
Sony came back with a clarification that they had not used the matter as a promotional one but only informed the dealers as LG themselves had accepted that the advertisement would not be run any further. Sony however leveled accusation on LG, saying that they had not removed the objectionable advertisement bits from their web sites.
NAD labeled the LG advertisement bit as one that was flawed as it was dependent on individual consumers perception.
In the words of Vandenbree vide a letter he dished out on Friday: “the NAD did not comment on the survey methodology in its Sony decision; but only that we should have tested more models if we wanted to make a broader claim. This decision from the NAD came in December … hardly the time to test more 2011 models or debate when our campaign was nearing its end.”
The full text of the study report submitted by LG could not be obtained from NAD as they were not contactable.
Vandenbree clarifies to the dealers, “There are no legal issues as called out in the letter as the NAD is a self-governing group and not a legally binding or law making entity. I’d save legal advice for the experts and not take it from anyone else.”
In its advertisement on the Cinema 3D model, LG claimed that four out of five viewers indicated that the result of the set was far superior to that of the LCD based TV sets marketed by Sony and Samsung. They specified that the viewers had commented on the color, picture quality and brightness to be superior. The LG sets in question are based on a film patterned retarder passive technology.
No comments have been received from Samsung in this regards till now.
Last week though, Samsung spokesman Ethan Raisel had mentioned, “We are pleased with NAD’s careful review of the facts, and agree that its recommendations are appropriate. Under NAD rules, we may not comment further on the decision. For more specific information regarding the decision and NAD’s reasoning, we refer you to the decision itself, which may be obtained from NAD.”
Vanderbee while thanking customers for voting with their wallets said “LG Electronics USA grew more than any other tier 1 manufacturer this past year – both in overall market share, and critical focus areas of big screen and advanced technologies like 3D. We couldn’t have done that without you, and we thank you for the support and partnership.”