Tag Archives: Ad Watchers

Episode Show Notes: How is Direct Selling Advertising Different?



00:00 – This Ad Watchers episode provides insight into BBB National Program’s Direct Selling Self Regulatory Council (DSSRC) and how it works within the direct selling industry. Eric Unis, Senior Attorney at the National Advertising Division (NAD), and his colleague Annie Ugurlayan, NAD’s Assistant Director, are joined by guest Peter Marinello, the Vice President of DSSRC.

Continue reading Episode Show Notes: How is Direct Selling Advertising Different?


How is Direct Selling Advertising Different?



For years, the direct selling industry carried a stigma of frauds and pyramid schemes, but in 2019, the Direct Selling Association decided to take control of its reputation. They enlisted the help of BBB National Programs to develop a self-regulatory program. From this partnership came the Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC).

In this episode of Ad Watchers, hosts Eric and Annie are joined by the Vice President of the DSSRC, Peter Marinello. Peter shares with listeners how the DSSRC has worked to support the direct selling industry. Listen now to understand self-regulation’s impact on the market and what to expect during a direct selling self-regulatory case.

For more information about this episode, read the show notes here


Revisiting the Best Podcast Episode Ever: What is Puffery?



When you hear a claim in an advertisement like, “best in the world,” you probably know that the product has not been measurably proven to actually be the best in the world. And that’s okay, because this is an example of puffery, an exaggerated, blustering, or boastful statement or general claim that could only be understood to be an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact. But where is the line between puffery and a claim that needs a reasonable basis?

In this episode of Ad Watchers, hosts Eric Unis and Annie Ugurlayan revisit a fan favorite episode from season one. Listen to hear Hal Hodes and La Toya Sutton break down the questions they ask to determine whether or not a statement is puffery. Later in the episode, they are joined by none other than current host Eric to judge the Battle Royale of Puffery: each host presents cases that illustrate various types of this practice. Tune in to hear which of our hosts has the best examples of puffery in the universe!

For more information about this episode, read the show notes here


Episode Show Notes: Revisiting the Best Podcast Episode Ever: What is Puffery?



For the fifth episode of season two, hosts Eric Unis and Annie Ugurlayan reintroduce a fan favorite episode from season one. In this episode Eric makes his Ad Watchers debut as a guest,
joining hosts Hal Hodes and La Toya Sutton to discuss puffery.
There is no universal definition for this term, but La Toya provided the following description: “Puffery is an exaggerated, blustering, or boastful statement. Or a general claim that could only be understood as an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact.”

Continue reading Episode Show Notes: Revisiting the Best Podcast Episode Ever: What is Puffery?


Episode Show Notes: How Should You Present Scientific Evidence to Support Your Ad Claims?



Ad Watchers’ episode four of season two provides advertisers insights into presenting evidence to support a claim at NAD. Eric Unis, Senior Attorney at the National Advertising Division (NAD), is joined by colleague Annie Ugurlayan, NAD’s Assistant Director, to walk listeners through what to expect when presenting a claim substantiation case. 

Annie begins by explaining that no matter the claim type, the stronger it is, the stronger its supporting evidence must also be. She states that different types of evidence bear different weights. For instance, human trials are more persuasive than animal trials when supporting a claim regarding pharmaceuticals marketed toward people. Annie also points out that it isn’t just express claims that need substantiation. Implied claims hold the same burden of proof. She uses the example of a “nontoxic” claim which would lead consumers to expect no health risks, even transient risks, to occur from the use or misuse of the product. Companies that make such implied claims must be able to provide evidence to support them. 

Continue reading Episode Show Notes: How Should You Present Scientific Evidence to Support Your Ad Claims?