Case Study #12-2: Exaggeration in advertising

Your brother-in-law clips an ad from a REALTOR^® out of the paper describing a home with five acres “about 20 miles from the city.” The ad says it’s a modern 3-bedroom home, well maintained and set in a charmingly landscaped site.

Your brother-in-law makes a trip out to see this charming property. The reality is a wee bit disappointing. The property is actually 36 miles out of town. It lacks indoor plumbing. Its wood lathe support for plaster, which is visible in many large breaks in the walls, indicates that the home is modern—when compared to a Scottish castle from the 1400s. There is no evidence of paint in recent years. There are several broken windows and half of the back steps are missing. Located at the end of a crude dirt road, it sits in a small cleared area long overtaken by the undergrowth. Your brother-in-law returns a bit peeved at the REALTOR^®. You advise him to forward the ad to the local board with a complaint.

The REALTOR^® is asked to respond to the charge of misleading advertising. At the hearing, first he criticizes you and your brother-in-law for bringing the matter to the Board, pointing out that the two of you had failed to mention that the property was priced at only $30,000; and at such a price it was an exceptionally good buy to anyone looking for a small place with a few acres. He notes that to get attention to this kind of property it was necessary to do a bit of “puffing” in his ads. In all, he says, the house was more rustic than neglected.

Is a bit of “puffing” in your ads allowed by the Code?

The answer is no, naturally. And no amount of reasoning by this slimey REALTOR^® can justify anything but absolute truth in your advertising. In the next ad you write be creative, be inventive and interesting, but above all be honest or like this particular REALTOR^®, you’ll be found in violation of Article 12.

Next Case Study: Advertising Free Market Analysis