Sam_Julier
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted by Tom NJ
Originally Posted by Shannow
They are intentionally creating an product and packaging that would lead the average person (note in Oz law, it's an average consumer that's the test, not a BITOGer, Terry Dyson, or oil company engineer that's the test subject) to incorrectly believe that it's appropriate for at least some of the cars in the carpark outside the store.
Exactly! You can bet that a lot of careful thought went into the design of that front label. Marketers know very well that many if not most consumers will not read the back label if the front label clearly states what they want to see. The front label is the primary communication to the buyer; it sends the message that they want the buyer to believe.
So what was Amalie's message to consumers when they chose to put the word PREMIUM in the largest capitalized print at the top of the front label? Were they trying to warn the buyer that the oil is not suitable for cars built in the last 88 years and could cause damage to their car? Or were they implying that the oil is of "premium" quality?
And what was the message with the racing flag? Could it be that the oil is a high performance product good enough for the grueling environment of racing?
And what was the message with the words "SPECIAL" and "Protects like no other"? These words imply that the oil stands out among competing products.
And what is the message with that round red swirl symbol, located where most oil labels position the round Starburst symbol?
Even the back label, for those who chose to turn the bottle around, continues with false and misleading statements, using words like "quality blend" and "protection against oxidation and corrosion" and "excellent and durable lubrication". And why select the words "older" cars; how many people would interpret "older" to extend back to 1930!
And to top it off, the oil is not even an SA grade! It is an SB.
It appears to me that that crucial front label was carefully designed to knowingly and intentionally deceive innocent consumers into believing this oil is not only suitable for their car engine, but actually superior.
There is no defense for such outright deception of 99% of the population. Only the 1% who actually know what SA means see nothing wrong with these labels. That tiny printed SA warning at the bottom of the back label does not excuse all the deception covering the rest of the labels. The fact is this oil can damage the vast majority of engines on the road today, and yet it is presented to the public as a "PREMIUM" and "SPECIAL" oil, a "quality blend" that "Protects like no others" and provides "excellent and durable lubrication" and even has some racing credentials. What kind of company does that?
Sorry, but this lawsuit is justified and has teeth, and I hope it serves as a warning to the many other marketers who misrepresent poor quality oils as suitable for the intended purpose.
Tom NJ
Completely agree. I will never consider an Amalie product.
Sam
Originally Posted by Shannow
They are intentionally creating an product and packaging that would lead the average person (note in Oz law, it's an average consumer that's the test, not a BITOGer, Terry Dyson, or oil company engineer that's the test subject) to incorrectly believe that it's appropriate for at least some of the cars in the carpark outside the store.
Exactly! You can bet that a lot of careful thought went into the design of that front label. Marketers know very well that many if not most consumers will not read the back label if the front label clearly states what they want to see. The front label is the primary communication to the buyer; it sends the message that they want the buyer to believe.
So what was Amalie's message to consumers when they chose to put the word PREMIUM in the largest capitalized print at the top of the front label? Were they trying to warn the buyer that the oil is not suitable for cars built in the last 88 years and could cause damage to their car? Or were they implying that the oil is of "premium" quality?
And what was the message with the racing flag? Could it be that the oil is a high performance product good enough for the grueling environment of racing?
And what was the message with the words "SPECIAL" and "Protects like no other"? These words imply that the oil stands out among competing products.
And what is the message with that round red swirl symbol, located where most oil labels position the round Starburst symbol?
Even the back label, for those who chose to turn the bottle around, continues with false and misleading statements, using words like "quality blend" and "protection against oxidation and corrosion" and "excellent and durable lubrication". And why select the words "older" cars; how many people would interpret "older" to extend back to 1930!
And to top it off, the oil is not even an SA grade! It is an SB.
It appears to me that that crucial front label was carefully designed to knowingly and intentionally deceive innocent consumers into believing this oil is not only suitable for their car engine, but actually superior.
There is no defense for such outright deception of 99% of the population. Only the 1% who actually know what SA means see nothing wrong with these labels. That tiny printed SA warning at the bottom of the back label does not excuse all the deception covering the rest of the labels. The fact is this oil can damage the vast majority of engines on the road today, and yet it is presented to the public as a "PREMIUM" and "SPECIAL" oil, a "quality blend" that "Protects like no others" and provides "excellent and durable lubrication" and even has some racing credentials. What kind of company does that?
Sorry, but this lawsuit is justified and has teeth, and I hope it serves as a warning to the many other marketers who misrepresent poor quality oils as suitable for the intended purpose.
Tom NJ
Completely agree. I will never consider an Amalie product.
Sam
