What you see is what you get – and a refund offer Commission settlement with Revlon
Published31 Oct 1997
As part of a settlement with the Commerce Commission, Revlon New Zealand Limited is publishing corrective advertising to ensure that what its customers see is what they get, and is offering dissatisfied customers a refund.
Commission Chairman Dr Alan Bollard said the settlement follows an investigation of a nation-wide promotion of Revlon super lustrous lipstick.
Dr Bollard said that the key to the investigation was that the photograph used in the promotion did not match the product being sold.
"This case highlights two rules that apply to all businesses," he said.
"What customers see is what they should get - pictures should be of the product being sold. And the shape and size of packaging is part of the promotion and can be misleading."
In the Commission's view, Revlon's promotion risked breaching the Fair Trading Act. The Act prohibits misleading conduct in relation to the quantity of goods.
Revlon promoted packs of four sample lipsticks with advertising at 440 stores throughout the country.
On the front of each pack was a photograph of four shades of lipstick. Beneath the photograph was stated "actual size on back". On the back was a window through which two of the lipsticks could be seen.
However, in the Commission's view, what customers could not see was that each lipstick cylinder contained far less lipstick than implied by the photograph.
When interviewed by the Commission, Revlon New Zealand's Marketing Manager said that the window on the back of the packs allowed customers to see what they were buying. She could not comment on why the casing of the lipstick was disproportionately larger than the actual lipstick.
Dr Bollard said that this case shows the total impact a nation-wide promotion can have on customers and how it can hurt competitors.
Each pack sold for $4.95, and the detriment to an individual customer cannot have been great. However, sales totalled $65,340, and that is business that Revlon's competitors' did not get because, in the Commission's view, Revlon's promotion was potentially misleading.
