Hugh and I went to Subway for lunch. He had vouchers. The new "Smokin' BBQ Chicken" looked gooooood. Well, in the poster, anyway.
What's wrong with this picture?
Sorry about the size of the photo...the Subway website only had a small picture of their new Smokin' Hot BBQ Chicken sandwich. Probably because they're ashamed. Or afraid someone might compare the real thing with the picture.
This is advertising 101 isn't it. We know that the real thing will never in a million years look anything like the sandwich in the poster. Yet, we order it anyway. And we're still disappointed when, instead of the plump, colourful healthy looking food we're "promised", we get the limp, sad looking squidge of soggy bread, watery chicken and... well, the cucumber wasn't bad.
Why do we put up with this again? Or is it simply a function of modern life that we accept it and roll our eyes when someone points it out?
What does the Advertising Standards Authority say about such things. Obviously I'll have to Google it now and check. Thing is, it's all around us, but it seems to only apply to food. If I put up a photo of a brand new Mustang, but was in fact selling an old clunker car with rust, dents and half the engine missing, I'm thinking surely there'd be room for a complaint. Definite case of misleading and deceptive advertising.
So why are the fast food chains allowed to get away with it? Because I've seen similar things done with hamburgers, tacos, and chicken.
Anyway, I'm off to Google the ASA.