EDITORIAL - ‘Framing’ the consumer
With at least two statutes governing the regulation of consumer transactions, ranging from the making of the contract itself to the quality of the goods and services supplied; and two agencies, the Fair Trading Commission and the Office of Public Counsel, to enforce their rights, the Barbadian consumer would appear to be comparatively well protected. However, while the Consumer Protection Act prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct by a supplier of goods or services, it does not preclude the supplier otherwise influencing the mind of a consumer to purchase its products.
Our attention has been drawn to a most interesting article appearing in Volume 31 of Compete magazine, a publication of the Fair Trading Commission of Jamaica. There the author, Mr Desroy Reid, a Competition Analyst at that Jamaican institution, discusses this notion of such conduct under the caption “Consumers are being framed: what are you doing about it?”
According to the author, if you have ever bought a product, whether shoes or grocery items, because of the “awesome bargain” that you thought you were getting, then after a moment or two only regretted your purchase and wondered what you were thinking, then you may have been “framed”. He defines the concept of framing theory as suggesting that the way in which products are framed or presented to an audience influences the choices they make as it affects how they process that information.
In a truly competitive market, he reasons, buyers and sellers are well informed. Thus a consumer would want to know the price and quality of the item he or she is purchasing and to make a decision based on this information. Anything done to disrupt this process, including misleading or deceptive representations about the product would affect the welfare that is yielded by the decision taken by a fully informed consumer and hence also disrupts fair competition in the market.
He is careful to note however that while misleading advertisements may be considered one type of framing and may be criminalised, not all framing is necessarily misleading.
Framing of consumers may occur through the use of language, images or music. The use of framing language is evident in an ad for breath mints – “Your perfume turns him on. Will your breath turn him off?” that seeks to equate the effect of the consumer’s breath on a romantic interest with the sensuous effect of his or her perfume, even though the two are not remotely connected.
Framing may also be found in those offers that insist you buy immediately to obtain the best bargain –“BUY NOW” and those offering tempting discounts.
The article also highlights the nature of positive and negative framing. While the former emphasises the benefits of acting now, the latter will stress the consequences should you fail to do so.
Finally, the author illustrates one offshoot of positive negative framing, that is the device of incomplete information. While a drug might allude to the chances of dying if you do not consume it, others might choose to state the chances of survival if you do. In neither case is there any reference to the other side of the coin; namely the usually greater probability of survival or the not insignificant risk of the drug not working.
As already stated, the law does not concern itself with framing except in those cases where it amounts to misleading or deceptive conduct. The law has for long relegated some advertisement claims to the realm of mere “puffery”, for which there is no legal redress. The wise consumer should be aware of the existence of framing and thus pay due regard to claims that seem too good to be true. They probably are not.