Issue #0729/1 - Hewlett-Packard very rapidly withdrew the advertisements that prompted the complaint to the UK’s Adertising Standards Agency, promising to avoid the contentious wording.
TCPglobal Issue#0721 carried an article entitled , with reference to trade advertising in the UK press that made some very spurious claims.
This issue was also raised by Kyocera in the form of an official complaint to the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
On 19th September, the ASA posted a notification that Hewlett-Packard had “informally resolved” the complaint.
In practice this means that the company has removed the offending advertising without argument and has made a commitment not to make similar claims in the future. No references will be made to ‘replacement toner’, ‘no drum’ or ‘unlike other brands’ in the future either.
Hewlett-Packard has no additional comment to make, presumably considering that the information already in the public sector is adequate.
It is understood that UK advertising is actually handled by a major distributor rather than by Hewlett-Packard itself – although Hewlett-Packard has declined to comment on this matter. It seems likely therefore that it is the distributor that is to blame – but Hewlett-Packard, by nature of the brand name in question, is automatically culpable in the legal sense.
If this is, in fact, the case, it almost certainly means that the offending advertisements were prepared by a marketing/advertising executive or assistant with little or no technical knowledge of printers or an understanding that is flawed and inadequate.
At a guess, I would suspect that, while considering the brief given by a superior, the individual looked at the specifications of the CP3505, along with competing colour laser printers, and has noticed that the CP3505 does not have a separate drum unit – unlike most of the other printers – and has attached too much importance to that fact.
If this is a true supposition, then what it amounts to is an error of judgement and lack of check procedures rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead customers.
However, a company like Hewlett-Packard cannot afford to be seen to be misleading or misguiding customers or to be providing incorrect information under any circumstances. Other major companies have suffered serious damage to their reputations and revenue by either: not taking action rapidly enough; taking the wrong action; or apparently not taking the issue seriously enough.
Historically, Hewlett-Packard has always settled complaints informally rather than have the ASA undertake a formal investigation. This has two effects: firstly, the full nature of the complaint is not made public and there is no formal ruling on the matter; and secondly, the company maintains its integrity in demonstrating that it takes its responsibilities seriously and responds rapidly to any issue that could damage its reputation.
Certainly from personal experience, I can vouch for the fact that Hewlett-Packard responds and takes relevant action very rapidly when any matter is brought to its attention – at a high level where necessary.
This incident shows just how easy it is for a manufacturer to make misleading claims and it is essential that the industry polices itself effectively. The complaint by Kyocera was entirely justified and a necessary part of that process. For Hewlett-Packard to acknowledge the error and take the necessary remedial action so rapidly, demonstrates responsibility, that manufacturers do respect one another and that they are prepared to put their hands up when errors are made.
~ End ~
