SONY – Neogen illegal again

The Romanian advertising law no. 148/2000 allows comparative advertising but the rules are not very permissive. For example, you can compare your product with another unidentified brand, you can also compare prices but that’s it!

While surfing Neogen (popular local website) I saw the ad below presenting OLYMPUS vs. SONY. The banner suggests that the SONY cameras are bad while OLYMPUS are the ones you should buy. I don’t know why Neogen allows this type of illegal advertising to run on their server but again, I’m not surprised and they should be aware of the risks:

Comparative Advertising

This is the second severe problem Neogen has in the last 24 hours with its advertising system and I’m afraid they are not going to stop here. The first problem was yesterday when a VODAFONE ad was next to a movie showing child abuse. Now SONY has serious reasons to demand some answers.

Noro, for the second time my blog provides critical info for the business so you should consider the right wine bottle.

6 Replies to “SONY – Neogen illegal again”

  1. I think you’re miss presenting the facts.
    First of all, I’m sure you know that that banner space is taken by Orlando, and that all the banners on that page (not only) are running from MPI servers.
    Second, the ad is not trying to sell something, and the actual word for that comparation is “vote”. It’s not ok for people to vote their favorite brands?
    Next, the ad is not made by Sony or Olympus. The ad is about a site where you can discuss, vote and read reviews about all kind of gadgets.
    And last, Sony and Olympus are not the only brands presented in the ad. And if you ask me, I would vote for Olympus too (I also have one) 🙂

    P.S. I’m not a jurist, but i read the law that you mention it, and frankly, i didn’t saw the illegality:
    Publicitatea comparativa este interzisa daca:
    a) comparatia este inselatoare, potrivit prevederilor art. 4 lit. b) si ale art. 7;
    b) se compara bunuri sau servicii avand scopuri sau destinatii diferite;
    c) nu se compara, in mod obiectiv, una sau mai multe caracteristici esentiale, relevante, verificabile si reprezentative – intre care poate fi inclus si pretul – ale unor bunuri sau servicii;
    d) se creeaza confuzie pe piata intre cel care isi face publicitate si un concurent sau intre marcile de comert, denumirile comerciale sau alte semne distinctive, bunuri sau servicii ale celui care isi face publicitate si cele apartinand unui concurent;
    e) se discrediteaza sau se denigreaza marcile de comert, denumirile comerciale, alte semne distinctive, bunuri, servicii sau situatia materiala a unui concurent;
    f) nu se compara, in fiecare caz, produse cu aceeasi indicatie, in cazul produselor care au indicatie geografica;
    g) se profita in mod incorect de renumele unei marci de comert, de denumirea comerciala sau de alte semne distinctive ale unui concurent ori de indicatia geografica a unui produs al unui concurent;
    h) se prezinta bunuri sau servicii drept imitatii sau replici ale unor bunuri sau servicii purtand o marca de comert sau o denumire comerciala protejata;
    i) se incalca orice alte prevederi ale Legii concurentei nr. 21/1996.
    ART. 9
    Comparatiile care se refera la o oferta speciala trebuie sa indice, in mod clar si neechivoc, data la care inceteaza oferta sau, daca este cazul, faptul ca oferta speciala se refera la stocul de bunuri sau de servicii disponibil, iar daca oferta speciala nu a inceput inca, data de incepere a perioadei in care se aplica pretul special sau alte conditii specifice.

    Maybe you will highlight for me the part which is referring to the “illegal ad”.
    Thank You.

  2. So, you’re not doing the same in this image:
    Cauze I see 3 bottles of vine, from different producers, but one is bigger than the other. I know, that’s the result of your testing, but it could easily be a comparative ad, praising the bigger vine, and denigrating the others. I see that this looks just like your example in this post. And i looked only on one of your sites. I’m sure that I can find other examples too (if I had the time) 🙂

  3. I’m not doing the banners but it’s not the same thing because:
    – the banner is positive
    – no bottle is cut from the picture with a red X
    – actually that is legal comparative ad
    – you really see the TOP 3 Feteasca Regala wines
    – the top10 is made by professionals after tasting the wines –
    see ->

    Of course, I answered your “truth and dare” because I wanted to explain the process.

    I’m glad you like the banner and I’m happy you understood the message.

    Now, you must know that Neogen should be the ones to judge and if you want, I can post another story about them (to see I’m not talking nonsense) 😉

  4. – I’m sure that Neogen didn’t made that banner also.
    – if you click on the banner (just like on your image) I’m sure you’ll get on a page where the voting results will show (of course, not made by specialists, but maybe thousands of users and specialists 🙂 ).
    – the voting results is also clearly
    – you can really see the compared products

    Now, everybody has an opinion, no? Mine is that you’re doing the same, but I don’t see an illegal ad. More over, you’re showing that image on your page, Neogen is showing that ad in a rented space, the space belongs to Orlando, and you know it. Why don’t you ask him why is he showing a banner like that?

    But anyway, this discution is goin’ nowhere since we both will believe what we want, so we’d better put a stop on it. At least I know I will 🙂

    Good luck with your projects, and don’t forget that behind every site, ad, TV station, there are people.

  5. 🙂
    This is why they have lawsuits, laws, judges and lawyers.
    My believes are, first of all, based on facts.

    I respect the fact that you love Neogen (or so it seems) and maybe they should pay you for the good PR (I remember Calin talking about your blog this spring) 😉

Comments are closed.