NAD: Kodak’s Not Lying About Their Printers
If you thought Kodak’s ink claims were too good to be true, well, they are true. At least according to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.
Apparently, Canon thought Kodak was (to put it diplomatically) exaggerating the extent of the cost savings associated with its inkjet printers. Kodak’s claim, for the record, was, “Save up to 50 percent on everything you print.”
NAD bills itself as “the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum.” So, they took a look and here’s what they concluded:
“Following its review of the evidence, including the results of testing conducted by a reputable third-party organization, NAD concluded that Kodak provided a reasonable basis for its ink cost-savings claim. Canon has indicated it intends to appeal that portion of the NAD’s decision finding that Kodak provided a reasonable basis for the ink cost-savings claim as it applied to the printing of color photographs.
However, NAD recommended that that Kodak modify the cost-savings claim as it appears on the front/back/top panels of its product packaging to clearly and conspicuously disclose on the same panel of the box as the claim appears that the touted savings refers to ink.”
Is it me, or are printer companies particularly touchy when it comes to competitive claims? Before this, I recall a few PMAs ago being subjected to a rather lengthy technical harangue about why Company X’s claim about “Y” was false. Then there was this brouhaha between Kodak and everyone else about inkjet longevity (a problem which has since been solved, more or less).
Smithie commented:
If Kodak is so open, then why is there no test data on their web
site? Why do you need to go to their test lab (Quality Logic) to
find a report for obsolete product? None of the posted Quality
Logic reports includes products Kodak started selling in Q1 2008.
(There is no test data in the Quality Logic reports for the ESP3
and ESP5). And if the test results are so solid, why does PC World
have testing that shows Kodak is more expensive than other brands
and a results may vary disclaimer? And if the NAD findings are so
solid, then why did Kodak quit the Better Business Bureau (the NAD
is part of the BBB)? I personally have seen color fading on "100
year" Kodak Ultima paper. Why should I believe this?
Smithie commented:
John Merrell commented:
Eastman Kodak is not, nor has ever been as company which tosses out
claims improperly. Kodak does its testing and evaluation well and
typically documents those claims several times over before its
legal department sanctions approval. I am not associated with Kodak
or the sale of its products, or as a consultant. Disclosure: I left
Kodak as an employee in 1993 and have worked for companies also
involved in NAD verification findings. The claims are solid.
John Merrell commented:
Schalliol commented:
Consumers are skeptical about claims from manufacturers, so I do
agree that "it's not you." I don't believe the vast majority of
consumers think that they can make comparisons between manufacturer
claims. That said, customers will always like to see claims of
higher efficiency.
Schalliol commented:
