FTC rules OR it's bail before jail so they'd better not fail!

[skeptic]

Although the FTC hasn't investigated or acted on exotic audio cable manufacturers, distributors and retailers, here are some of the rules and guidelines they would likely use if and when they do. They are outlined in various FTC web sites such as; http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menu-ads.htm

For example, in a letter explaining their policy on deception to Representative John Dingell http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm they said;

" Some exaggerated claims, however, may be taken seriously by consumers and are actionable. For instance, in rejecting a respondent's argument that use of the words "electronic miracle" to describe a television antenna was puffery, the Commission stated:

Although not insensitive to respondent's concern that the term miracle is commonly used in situations short of changing water into wine, we must conclude that the use of "electronic miracle" in the context of respondent's grossly exaggerated claims would lead consumers to give added credence to the overall suggestion that this device is superior to other types of antennae. Jay Norris, 91 F.T.C. 751, 847 n.20 (1978), aff'd, 598 F.2d 1244 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 (1979)."

And on substantiation of claims policy statement; http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/ad3subst.htm

"The reasonable basis doctrine requires that firms have substantiation before disseminating a claim."

Also see; http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/federaltrade/federaltrade.htm

"Under that new definition, the FTC will find a practice deceptive if (1) there is a representation, omission or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and (3) it is likely to affect the consumer's choice of, or conduct regarding, a product. The first requirement is obvious, and the FTC generally assumes that the last requirement is met. The second requirement, therefore, is the essence of this definition. The issue is not whether an advertising claim is "false." The issue is whether the claim is likely to lead consumers to develop a false belief."

Now where do you think audio cable manufacturers and their agents stand in the legality of their advertising? Any lawyers in the audience?

[woodman]

"Under that new definition, the FTC will find a practice deceptive if (1) there is a representation, omission or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and (3) it is likely to affect the consumer's choice of, or conduct regarding, a product. The first requirement is obvious, and the FTC generally assumes that the last requirement is met. The second requirement, therefore, is the essence of this definition. The issue is not whether an advertising claim is "false." The issue is whether the claim is likely to lead consumers to develop a false belief."

Now where do you think audio cable manufacturers and their agents stand in the legality of their advertising? Any lawyers in the audience?

Interestingly, we now have a banner ad on this very board from the "BetterCables" company which deftly sidesteps making a sonic claim. It says ... "make your system better" without sayng a word about better-how? Better looking? Neater? Providing a "better than" (your neighbor) feeling?

'twould sure be easily taken by a consumer to mean "better-sounding" but they carefully do not say any such thing. Damned clever, some of these homo sapiens, aren't they?

[mtrycraft]

Any lawyers in the audience?


Yeah, pctower :) Where are you?

[skeptic]

Since the primary function of a wire is to transmit an electrical signal from one point to another, the average consumer might reasonably assume that this means it will perform that function better. But given that there is no proof of this, that ad would seem to violate the regulation which is the crux of the law; "The issue is whether the claim is likely to lead consumers to develop a false belief." In other words the belief that this will make an electrical improvement which will make an improvement in the overall peformace of the sound system which is ITS primary function. And of course the other stipulations require prior proof for such claims. I am no lawyer so perhaps a lawyer's point of view is required. OTOH, lawyers are trained to argue every side of every issue with equal force. It is only when they get to be judges that they are able to tell right from wrong.

[Hoho]

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for Homines sapientes who use Homo sapiens as the plural.

[spacedeckman]

John Dingell and his attention seeking bretheren "serving us" in government will get some reserved seating as well. But doing this crap is a lot easier than actually doing something good and productive for the country...while not trying to spend us into the poor house.

[woodman]

Up until now, I hadn't bothered to check into the aforementioned ad to see just what they (BetterCables) would have to say about how their cables will make your system "better".

Once I did, I was flabbergasted ... no, make that OUTRAGED!! When you click on the phrase - "Click Here to Make Your System Better", the next screen that appears shows a comparison of two video cables (one of them theirs, of course) showing the same image. The image from their cable looks just fine, while the image from the other cable is right on the brink of being un-watchable! Talk about mis-leading! I'm appalled that anyone would put such a thing in an ad to begin with, but they seem to be not only doing it - they're doing it with a perfectly straight face!

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!! Check it out for yourselves.

[pctower]

Yeah, pctower :) Where are you?

I'm here, but by definition (I'm not a judge) I'm incapable of discerning right from wrong, so I'll keep my opinions on the add to myself. Suffice it to say that I'm on record at the old board of saying that I don't believe anyone, including cable companies, should be above the law.

BTW, if skeptic is ever involved in litigation, I wish him luck in finding his notion of an ideal lawyer to represent him - someone who will substitute his own judgment for that of the judge and jury and if he believes skeptic to be in the wrong will find some clever way of ensuring he looses.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who hate lawyers want those of us who are paid by private citizens to represent them and protect their rights to violate the ethics of our profession which require undivided loyalty to our clients; and, instead, supplant the function of judge and jury by taking on unto ourselves the role of making the decisions that are currently left to the judge and jury.

I grew up believing that one of the great strengths of our country was the limits imbedded in our constitution that prohibit the state from depriving citizens of life, freedom or property without due process administered by an independent judiciary in the form of an adversarial system which charges lawyers on each side with presenting the case in favor of the side they represent as vigorously as possible, subject to the requirements of due process as administered by the judge, with the ultimate decisions made by judge and jury after hearing the evidence and arguments presented by the lawyers on each side.

People like skeptic seem to want to eliminate all that messy due process stuff and simply let private lawyers such as myself make the ultimate decisions of what's right and wrong under our laws. Or maybe he just wants to eliminate lawyers altogether and simply leave it up to the bureaucrats to decide who goes to jail, who is beheaded and who must give up all of his belongings to the almighty, all-knowing state.

Or maybe he's just a blow-hard imbecile.

[spacedeckman]

I like a man with a plan and a bit of forward vision.

You score a big one in my book.

The system isn't broken yet, but it is breaking quickly. Too many people aren't looking for justice, instead a lottery ticket or a way to bully something through that benefits the few at the expense of the many but runs counter to the constitution. You are a REAL lawyer to be sure.

[Crunchyriff]

That is a slam dunk, sir. Very well put.

I think people need to stop and use thier heads for a second. Look at all the marketing done in print, audio, and every other form of media.

The "superiority" of any given product marketed is implied, if not directly worded as such. Either from an "improve your life" angle, or "this product is the BEST" point of view.

It is the highest form of the power of suggestion. Highly lucerative, too.

"Only a Gibson is Good Enough" is one of hundreds of thousands of marketing slogans designed to accomplish one thing: sell you thier product. Period. IS only a Gibson truly good enough? In some minds, yes; in others, not a chance.

"There are those who travel, and those who travel WELL"- Lincoln's big suggestive slogan says that you aren't travelling "well" unless you are in a Lincoln product...being as I think my wife's '01MilleniaS is the cat's meow, I don't agree- I travel well, and that, quickly; but I'm not going to sue over it.

Much if what is 'the best' is highly subjective. "AS a man thinketh, so is he." I could buy GMC one week, and think there is nothing finer, and then next year buy FORD (which, for me is highly improbable) and think the same thing.

I thnk the current trend of litigating these issues is preposterous, shallow, and a threat to the society as we know it. AS has been pointed out already, things are already bad enough.

If people don't take any time to research just a little bit, (especially in the today's Net info at your fingertips) before they buy a product, and just throw the cash down, well it's thier own fault.

Another one of those "oh my stupid decison is sombody else's fault, not mine" issues.

If any litigation should be pondered against ANY particular group, it should be against the politicians who promise one thing to get elected, and then do an about-face after the votes are counted; and against those politicians who were sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US, and since thier stepping into office, having done everything possible to disembowel it.

What a concept.

[skeptic]

Much if what is 'the best' is highly subjective.

I thnk the current trend of litigating these issues is preposterous, shallow, and a threat to the society as we know it. AS has been pointed out already, things are already bad enough.

If people don't take any time to research just a little bit, (especially in the today's Net info at your fingertips) before they buy a product, and just throw the cash down, well it's thier own fault.

Another one of those "oh my stupid decison is sombody else's fault, not mine" issues.


This is a familiar arguement....by those rationalizing the commitment of fraud.

[skeptic]

. Or maybe he just wants to eliminate lawyers altogether and simply leave it up to the bureaucrats to decide who goes to jail, who is beheaded and who must give up all of his belongings to the almighty, all-knowing state.



Actually I wish they would just leave it up to me. I would enjoy playing god. At least for a while.

[Rockwell]

...Or maybe he's just a blow-hard imbecile.

What does your response have to do with skeptic's original post? Are you refering to some other post or just taking the opportunity to slam him? Do you think that cable ads are over the line or not?

[Crunchyriff]

I am NOT rationalizing the commitment of fraud, melad. Not whatsoever.

Nor am I necesarily agreeing with pctowers' suggestion of being a blowhard.

But I DO agree with the meat and potatoes of his post.

Many companies assert that thier design is the best, that thier way/design is the superior way to do things, etc. It's been done for years. Much of this is based on truthful opinon, bias, and sometimes, complete fabrication.

That being said, can you imagine the burden of proof that would fall upon any marketing agencies' shoulders, if they had concretely qualify every single marketing claim made by thier clients, let alone fall on the corporations themselves?
Gasoline
Tires
Home Builders
Computers
Autos
Motorcycles
Asprin

Anything else you can imagine.

LET'S BE REAL: BK and McD's have been claiming for years that thier product is superior to the other's. We all know that both are the nutritional equivalent of crap, with only slightly different tastes. And the consumers love 'em.

Bottom line: People need to grow up and take resposibility for thier own decisions in how they spend thier money. Make educated purchases. Period. Unless it's a rash, spur of the moment decision, the'se no excuse to do otherwise.

[Rockwell]

...
Many companies assert that thier design is the best, that thier way/design is the superior way to do things, etc. It's been done for years. Much of this is based on truthful opinon, bias, and sometimes, complete fabrication.

That being said, can you imagine the burden of proof that would fall upon any marketing agencies' shoulders, if they had concretely qualify every single marketing claim made by thier clients, let alone fall on the corporations themselves?
Gasoline
Tires
Home Builders
Computers
Autos
Motorcycles
Asprin

Anything else you can imagine.

LET'S BE REAL: BK and McD's have been claiming for years that thier product is superior to the other's. We all know that both are the nutritional equivalent of crap, with only slightly different tastes. And the consumers love 'em.

Bottom line: People need to grow up and take resposibility for thier own decisions in how they spend thier money. Make educated purchases. Period. Unless it's a rash, spur of the moment decision, the'se no excuse to do otherwise.

There is a difference between claiming you product is the best, and claiming that your product performs better or will improve some parameter.

Claiming your product is the best in some unspecified way cannot be verified. example: "Our hamburgers are the coolest."

Claiming that you product is the best at something can be verified.
example: "Our hamburgers are the most nutritional and will help you lose weight."

As for the McD and BK analogy: Superior taste could be demonstrated by blind test, but I am not sure either made that claim specifically or would want to. However, it seems that they are marketing their product as some sort of lifestyle choice and with it you are gaining a cachet.

It is up to the consumer to educate themselves, but the cable industry provides zero useful performance information, and perpetuates the myth that cables can increase audio performance. If a consumer didn't stumble upon this message board, where would they get objective information? Certainly not from salesmen or magazines, probably not friends, and not from cable ads either.

[skeptic]

There is a difference between claiming you product is the best, and claiming that your product performs better or will improve some parameter.

Claiming your product is the best in some unspecified way cannot be verified. example: "Our hamburgers are the coolest."

Claiming that you product is the best at something can be verified.
example: "Our hamburgers are the most nutritional and will help you lose weight."

As for the McD and BK analogy: Superior taste could be demonstrated by blind test, but I am not sure either made that claim specifically or would want to. However, it seems that they are marketing their product as some sort of lifestyle choice and with it you are gaining a cachet.

It is up to the consumer to educate themselves, but the cable industry provides zero useful performance information, and perpetuates the myth that cables can increase audio performance. If a consumer didn't stumble upon this message board, where would they get objective information? Certainly not from salesmen or magazines, probably not friends, and not from cable ads either.

In a book no longer in publication called "I can sell you anything" a top notch Madison Avenue advertising expert explained all kinds of weasel word selling techniques. In advertising, the legal definition of the word "best" means that nobody elses product is better than yours but yours is not necessarily any better than anyone elses. Given the lack of documented proof of audio cable performance, virtually anyone can legitimately make this claim about their wire, including Home Depot.

"It is up to the consumer to educate themselves"

Actually, the advertiser must be very careful about how he pushes his product. Any direct claims must be supportable by independent scientific testing to the standards of that industry (in this case the standards of the electrical equipment and wire manufacturing industies, not just exotic cable makers who apparantly have no standards or scruples.) On the other hand, there is a hazy area between suggestion and inuendo that would lead you to believe in something that isn't true, an implied but not stated claim and what is legal under the FTC fair advertising rules. This is the area cable manufacturers exploit and hope to defend themselves with if and when their day of reckoning ever arrives. In the meanwhile, it is up to consumers to fend for themselves. Most succumb to the trick though and buy whatever the sales people are pushing in the naive hope that they are getting something of value.

[Crunchyriff]

" Superior taste could be demonstrated by blind test, but I am not sure either made that claim specifically or would want to."

Superior taste is HIGHLY subjective. The palette varies from individual to individual.
Thus, you have some wiggle room here, but still, some people will simply prefer the taste of one over the other.

Now, if you have some 18th century "snake oil" style, outrageous claims, I'm all for the FTC kicking butt.

OTOH, as far as legitimizing for instance, Better Cables' claim of superiority, all they have to do to validate thier claims, IMHO, is let these cats drag 'em into court. Take in a nice 36" video monitor, or bigger, and the DVD player of choice. First hook it up with the cheapie $2.50 video cable...then plug in thiers. If there is any degree of RF (or anything else) interference in that courtroom, that should settle things real quick.

I realize there are STD's in place already for marketing/advertising- but they are nothing but a pair of asbestos briefs for the companies, with a rip-cord attached to the hand of the FTC. Almost legalized extortion, if you will.

Case in point- GASOLINE. Every major manufacturer has done thier own "official scientific studies proving" that thier product is superior to the others. Well, obviously, somebody is lying. But the farcical charade continues, all under the Blessing of the FTC.

"Wink Wink".

I am amazed at the people I know around me who, go searching for a product, ask me questions, (see, I am known as one who does a lot of digging and research before I spend my money- this goes for my personal friends, as well as my professional contacts) I tell them what resources to check out regarding the perspective product, and then they go and make a rash buying decision, and cry like a baby when they get screwed (can I say that?) BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO CHECK IT OUT FIRST.

It's thier own freaking fault. And because of that, I have no sympathy for these people whatsoever when they do this.

Again, in this 'information age' of Consumer Reports, AudioReview, and many, many other newsstand and online publications, ignorance USUALLY equals laziness on the part of the consumer.

[woodman]

... Now, if you have some 18th century "snake oil" style, outrageous claims, I'm all for the FTC kicking butt.

OTOH, as far as legitimizing for instance, Better Cables' claim of superiority, all they have to do to validate thier claims, IMHO, is let these cats drag 'em into court. Take in a nice 36" video monitor, or bigger, and the DVD player of choice. First hook it up with the cheapie $2.50 video cable...then plug in thiers. If there is any degree of RF (or anything else) interference in that courtroom, that should settle things real quick.

Crunchy:
Did you (or anyone else) take a look at the totally outrageous pix that BetterCables are using in their ads to demonstrate how much "better" the pic quality is when using their video cables instead of some other brand?

My point being that no matter what cheap, inferior, deficient, second-rate POS video cable you can find, you cannot and will not produce a picture even remotely like the "other" pic they're showing as a comparison to their "BetterCable". The only way such a picture can be created is to turn both the brightness and the contrast waaaaaay down to near invisiblity! If that doesn't qualify as misleading and deceptive advertising, I don't know what else you could call it.

Comments anyone?

[Crunchyriff]

Yeah I just looked at that...

interesting... hmm looks like a poorly setup display as you said, not one plauged by interference.
I suppose the company could argue that they were trying to create an 'example', but there should be some sort of disclaimer there.

Sad thing is, I like the company, I've been wanting to upgrade my video & audio cables to thier stuff- due to the HIGH praise they have received from critics. Thier products have rated VERY well, in the shadow of some 'boutique manufacturers', whose prices are more than downright asinine...

[skeptic]

Crunchy, you obviously didn't read my original posting carefully. The FTC's ruling about the antenna manufacturer's claims are substantially the same as what the wire manufacturers say. They had no proof. They mislead their customers into thinking they were getting improved performance when they weren't. They were crooks who cheated their customers through deception. That's not my opinion. That's the law.

The criminal ALWAYS sooner or later says when he's caught red handed that the law isn't fair, it's applied unequally, and that they therefore didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be prosecuted. So far they've gotten away with it in the wire industry because this industry is so small, it insn't even on the FTC's radar screen.

How could you consider any review in an audio magazine which advertises these products. How long do you think they would continue to get ad money if they told their readers that these products were worthless? Stereo Review made that mistake ONCE. It never happend again. BTW, Consumer's Review which doesn't take advertising money says they are worthless. But what do their test labs know? They like some Bose speakers.

[Crunchyriff]

"They mislead their customers into thinking they were getting improved performance when they weren't. They were crooks who cheated their customers through deception. That's not my opinion. That's the law."

Well, I don't have a problem with that. They should be busted. So where am I wrong thern??
I still don't think that what I said was a bit wrong.

You also asked a lawyer's opinion...and one that I would be damn proud top have working for me, answered you. (albeit with a nasty jab) He doesn't seem the type to suffer fools, and is probably extremely tired of practicing "law" and not seeing justice served. That's my kind of guy.

As far as somebody's credibility in question simply because they like Bose, well, that's another 'OPINION'. I personally don't like most of thier products, but the Bose sys in my wife's Millenia S is pretty nice. Seems like that's one of thier strong points...

[pctower]

What does your response have to do with skeptic's original post? Are you refering to some other post or just taking the opportunity to slam him? Do you think that cable ads are over the line or not?

I'm responding to this:

"I am no lawyer so perhaps a lawyer's point of view is required. OTOH, lawyers are trained to argue every side of every issue with equal force. It is only when they get to be judges that they are able to tell right from wrong."

and a long history of his accusing me of taking both sides of an issue.

I think some cable adds probably violate FTC regulations and some don't.

[skeptic]

I think some cable adds probably violate FTC regulations and some don't.

I think the ones that don't are the ones that never made it into print.

[rb122]

[QUOTE=skeptic]Since the primary function of a wire is to transmit an electrical signal from one point to another, the average consumer might reasonably assume that this means it will perform that function better. But given that there is no proof of this, that ad would seem to violate the regulation which is the crux of the law; "The issue is whether the claim is likely to lead consumers to develop a false belief." In other words the belief that this will make an electrical improvement which will make an improvement in the overall peformace of the sound system which is ITS primary function.

Who is going to judge whether the belief is false, the folks that measure it and say it couldn't possibly improve the system or the folks that listen to it and claim it does? If someone plugs in their new cable and feel that it does improve things, why would this not make the cable company's claim accurate, at least from an FTC perspective? False advertising means that the company advertised an "if-then" causal relationship between their product and a desired outcome. With cable believers, that causal relationship exists. How could it possibly be disproved?

[Rockwell]

Who is going to judge whether the belief is false, the folks that measure it and say it couldn't possibly improve the system or the folks that listen to it and claim it does? If someone plugs in their new cable and feel that it does improve things, why would this not make the cable company's claim accurate, at least from an FTC perspective? False advertising means that the company advertised an "if-then" causal relationship between their product and a desired outcome. With cable believers, that causal relationship exists. How could it possibly be disproved?

So extanding that logic; a pharmacutical company could sell a sugar pill with an advertised purpose, and because people believe that it is helping feel better, then FTC can do nothing?
Either the wire is doing something real, or it is not.

[okiemax]

So extanding that logic; a pharmacutical company could sell a sugar pill with an advertised purpose, and because people believe that it is helping feel better, then FTC can do nothing?
Either the wire is doing something real, or it is not.

Does the FTC have a say on medicines? I thought it was the FDA. Anyway, the regulations may not be as strict as you think. I'm looking at a box of ginseng tea I just bought, and it says among other things "specially designed to boost mental and physical energy" and "effective for stress related problems." But then there is this disclaimer in smaller print near the bottom of the box: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Disclaimer notwithstanding, I hope it works.

[Rockwell]

Does the FTC have a say on medicines? I thought it was the FDA. Anyway, the regulations may not be as strict as you think. I'm looking at a box of ginseng tea I just bought, and it says among other things "specially designed to boost mental and physical energy" and "effective for stress related problems." But then there is this disclaimer in smaller print near the bottom of the box: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Disclaimer notwithstanding, I hope it works.

Well, you know what I meant...whoever regulates that. I think that herbal tea falls under the classification of dietary supplement like a vitamin or diet pill, which it seems the FDA doesn't seem to regulate at all until people start dying. I was thinking more along the lines of a cold medicine which, I assume, is different than an over-the counter drug.

[okiemax]

Well, you know what I meant...whoever regulates that. I think that herbal tea falls under the classification of dietary supplement like a vitamin or diet pill, which it seems the FDA doesn't seem to regulate at all until people start dying. I was thinking more along the lines of a cold medicine which, I assume, is different than an over-the counter drug.

I'm not as sure as you are that we are well protected from misleading advertisments about drugs. From what I have read, the FDA can ask a drug company to stop running a misleading ad, but doesn't have the power to punish the firm for having done so in the first place. I have read that the FDA cited Lipitor ads four times between 1998 and 2002 for giving the wrong impression that this drug can reduce heart disease and falsely claiming it's safer than competing drugs.

[rb122]

So extanding that logic; a pharmacutical company could sell a sugar pill with an advertised purpose, and because people believe that it is helping feel better, then FTC can do nothing?
Either the wire is doing something real, or it is not.

I would not extend that logic because I can't elevate a cable to a matter of life or death - or a matter of sickness or health. Extending logic in this manner would be like putting health warnings on paper because of possible paper cuts or on flat shoes that may slip on ice. Cables are a means to enjoyment - a pastime. I see your point but I think you're stretching things well beyond the importance of cables and well beyond why anyone should care if people believe in cable sonics or not.

How would a judge or the FTC be able to determine if the cable is doing something real or not? Who's going to argue what is "real"? Science? Cable sonics are faith based. You might as well have the FTC litigate against churches for advertising the existence of God since science doesn't support that existence. Think of all the people that are being harmed because of this belief! Why do you not attempt to protect them just as passionately? Sure, freedom of religion is protected - but I've often read on this site that cable beliefs are like a religion :)

I'm not trying to be combative but I would like to ask a question: who cares about cable advertising, cable sonics and why? Cable sonics seems like a harmless belief to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Rockwell]

I would not extend that logic because I can't elevate a cable to a matter of life or death - or a matter of sickness or health. Extending logic in this manner would be like putting health warnings on paper because of possible paper cuts or on flat shoes that may slip on ice. Cables are a means to enjoyment - a pastime. I see your point but I think you're stretching things well beyond the importance of cables and well beyond why anyone should care if people believe in cable sonics or not.

How would a judge or the FTC be able to determine if the cable is doing something real or not? Who's going to argue what is "real"? Science? Cable sonics are faith based. You might as well have the FTC litigate against churches for advertising the existence of God since science doesn't support that existence. Think of all the people that are being harmed because of this belief! Why do you not attempt to protect them just as passionately? Sure, freedom of religion is protected - but I've often read on this site that cable beliefs are like a religion :)

I'm not trying to be combative but I would like to ask a question: who cares about cable advertising, cable sonics and why? Cable sonics seems like a harmless belief to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

The point I was trying to make with my (however flawed :) ) analogy was that selling something that really does nothing(as claimed) is wrong. It doesn't matter if no one gets hurt or whether or not the the company ever gets punished. I was trying to project a similar situation on to another industry where people don't have such an apathetic attitude towards fraud.

As for the question how would a judge would decide: Take a look at the "Benefits" on this web page: http://www.psaudio.com/products/xstream_power.asp
It seems to me that two or three are specific enough that they could be verified. ..and the customer quotes are over the top, but there probably isn't anything that can be done about those.

You are asking why anyone would care about this industry. I think that most of the "objectivists" on this board are engineers or scientists of some sort, and everything about cable sonics/technology and assosociated tweak industry insults their profession and intelligence. You have a whole industry based on a whole lot of nothing being sold at astronomical prices disingenuously using psuedo-science. Not everyone is has money to burn, and when Joe Consumer goes into Circuit City, he shouldn't be conned into spending hundreds of dollars on Monster cable for his HT system. Joe is not a scientist or an engineer, and there really is no place to get objective information about whether these cables are providing anything worthwhile.

[rb122]

The point I was trying to make with my (however flawed :) ) analogy was that selling something that really does nothing(as claimed) is wrong. It doesn't matter if no one gets hurt or whether or not the the company ever gets punished. I was trying to project a similar situation on to another industry where people don't have such an apathetic attitude towards fraud.

As for the question how would a judge would decide: Take a look at the "Benefits" on this web page: http://www.psaudio.com/products/xstream_power.asp
It seems to me that two or three are specific enough that they could be verified. ..and the customer quotes are over the top, but there probably isn't anything that can be done about those.

You are asking why anyone would care about this industry. I think that most of the "objectivists" on this board are engineers or scientists of some sort, and everything about cable sonics/technology and assosociated tweak industry insults their profession and intelligence. You have a whole industry based on a whole lot of nothing being sold at astronomical prices disingenuously using psuedo-science. Not everyone is has money to burn, and when Joe Consumer goes into Circuit City, he shouldn't be conned into spending hundreds of dollars on Monster cable for his HT system. Joe is not a scientist or an engineer, and there really is no place to get objective information about whether these cables are providing anything worthwhile.

I see your point but I think the accusation of "fraud" is going to be difficult to prove when you have an entire sub-niche group of users who will swear up and down that their system did indeed improve through the use of these exotic cables.

Your third paragraph in particular makes a whole lot of sense from more than a few aspects. You're correct; Joe Consumer has no means to fight back. He's not an audiophile with a lot of experience in determining for himself that cables are either a fraud or a godsend. You're also correct that he's probably being fed pseudo-science in order to forcefeed his decision and he's not equipped to refute it. So, as it worked with me, at least the first set of cables is purchased and the cycle begins, at which point it's up the consumer to learn for himself if cables are worth fussing over. As a result, I would think that the cable companies and retailers should indeed refrain from using advertising that claims anything of a scientific nature and instead uses nothing other than personal anecdotes such as "thousands of happy users feel these cables are the best" or something along those lines. They should be able to garner enough of those.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion, Rockwell! :)

[DMK]

Why not sic the FTC on the ENTIRE audio industry - electronics, turntables, CD players, etc? And why stop at audio? How about lounge chairs (no proof one is more comfortable than another, only anecdotal info), computers, tv's, cement, hammers, carpet, bicycles, or anything else that requires subjectivity to determine preferences?

Marketing is marketing is marketing. You state that either a cable is doing something or it isn't. Who decides, the FTC or the user? Sure, you and I believe that audio/video cables are the same unless engineered to be colored. Others believe differently. I may believe the marketing ploy of a couch maker that claims theirs is better than a competitor. Someone else may disagree. Should DBT's be employed to "prove" their is no difference? I should think that the average intelligent adult could make their own determination, just as we have for as long as marketing has been around. I think when they market towards someone's preference even if you and I may deem it imagination, the FTC would be well advised to find something else to do. I can appreciate that the very idea of cable sonics is an insult to your profession but realize that the people who are supposedly insulting you obviously know less about your profession than you do!

[Rockwell]

Why not sic the FTC on the ENTIRE audio industry - electronics, turntables, CD players, etc? And why stop at audio? How about lounge chairs (no proof one is more comfortable than another, only anecdotal info), computers, tv's, cement, hammers, carpet, bicycles, or anything else that requires subjectivity to determine preferences?

Marketing is marketing is marketing. You state that either a cable is doing something or it isn't. Who decides, the FTC or the user? Sure, you and I believe that audio/video cables are the same unless engineered to be colored. Others believe differently. I may believe the marketing ploy of a couch maker that claims theirs is better than a competitor. Someone else may disagree. Should DBT's be employed to "prove" their is no difference? I should think that the average intelligent adult could make their own determination, just as we have for as long as marketing has been around. I think when they market towards someone's preference even if you and I may deem it imagination, the FTC would be well advised to find something else to do. I can appreciate that the very idea of cable sonics is an insult to your profession but realize that the people who are supposedly insulting you obviously know less about your profession than you do!

The marketing of cables goes beyond the normal marketing spin that most people can shrug off. First off, the information presented is often so technical that most people have no idea whether or not is true or relevant. Second, the ideolgy implied and promoted has no basis in fact. Third, there is no objective source of information for cables like Consumer Reports. Marketing for preference is one thing, but they are implying that their cables are a performance enhancer. I have no idea if what they are doing is legal or not, but it seems more underhanded than normal marketing.

[skeptic]

As for the question how would a judge would decide: Take a look at the "Benefits" on this web page: http://www.psaudio.com/products/xstream_power.asp
It seems to me that two or three are specific enough that they could be verified. ..and the customer quotes are over the top, but there probably isn't anything that can be done about those.

You are asking why anyone would care about this industry.

The FTC cares about advertising in EVERY industry. The FTC is there to protect the rights of American consumers to know if a claim of superior performance has any scientific validity so that a decision to purchase can be made on reasonable expectations that an alternative choice, possibly a much cheaper one, wouldn't yield equally satisfactory results. That's what fraud is all about, the making of false or unsubstantiated claims and the FTC has ruled that this mean scientifically substantiated in advance of making the claims, not going back after the ad is challenged to find proof or taking testimonials from users of a product. The claims for this product are interesting. Some of them are patently absurd.

Here are the claims;

Lower noise floor
World's best power delivery system
Unrestricted power
Ability to eliminate ground loops
Actually cleans the AC power

It could be argued that the marginal increase of inductance due to the ferrite in the outer jacket creates a very minimal but measurable improvement in the "noise floor." This could be provable but for that electronic equipment with excellent regulation, it may be impossible to find even with instruments. Nowhere does it say that the improvement will be significant to the point where it will be audible. That is left for the reader to infer. So if another power cord for an audio amplifier delivers a S/N ratio of -110.1 db and this one gets performance of -110.2 db, the claim is true but the improvement is worthless.

The term "best" in advertising parlance has been interpreted to mean that it's as good as anybody elses but not necessarily better. Of course, there is no proof of this because it would have to be compared with every other product of its kind available and surely, much heavier gage wire would be an improvement at least in terms of IR losses although that would not be of any practical benefit either.

That the power cord can deliver unlimited power is absurd. Even if it wasn't for the limitation of the upstream protective device, a 15 or 20 amp circuit breaker or fuse, the current carrying capacity and breakdown voltage limitation of the insulation is a clear limit for ANY electrical conductor. When the current is high enough, the conductor will melt and the cable will fail. When the voltage is high enough, the insulation will break down and the cable will fail. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Power is only unlimited in the sense that it will deliver as much power as the circuit it is intended for will allow. But that it true for any power cord of 12 gage or heavier.

"Removable ground pin
One of the coolest new innovations we came up with on the xStream power cables that have begun shipping in 2004 is a removable ground pin.

The ground pin on a power cable is there to tie the ground of the AC receptacle to your equipment. However, in some cases, this ground pin can cause a ground loop and cause hum and buzz in your system."

I would never use a power cable that has a removable ground pin. The NEC requires that ground wires be of low impedence. When the equipment manufacturer requires them they MUST be present and be used. You cannot break or compromise the safety ground connection between the outlet and the equipment in any way. Chapter 250 of the National Electrical Code which deals with grounding is always the largest chapter. It's importance in protecting life and property cannot be overstressed but this design flies right in the face of it. Eliminating ground loops must be done in other ways such as by design of the power distribution system and by breaking the loop in signal wires, meaning antenna and audio cables, not power cords. The first time there is an electrical fault and resulting injury or death where the low impedence ground path is through antenna wires and audio cables because the user removed the ground pin will make national headlines. It is impossible for me to see how this cable could get a UL listing with this feature. This one is really scary.

The thinking of people who would market such a device as this cable must be completely obsessed with profits and they must have no conscience whatsoever.

[DMK]

The marketing of cables goes beyond the normal marketing spin that most people can shrug off. First off, the information presented is often so technical that most people have no idea whether or not is true or relevant. Second, the ideolgy implied and promoted has no basis in fact. Third, there is no objective source of information for cables like Consumer Reports. Marketing for preference is one thing, but they are implying that their cables are a performance enhancer. I have no idea if what they are doing is legal or not, but it seems more underhanded than normal marketing.

Do people automatically believe technical arguments if they don't understand what's being said? Hmmm... maybe they do. That makes them gullible. No crime in playing to the gullible. I would imagine that 99% of all advertising does the same. Perhaps Consumer Reports should start this cable re-revolution!

Yes, they adverts are implying that their cables are a performance enhancer. For thousands of people, they are! Thousands of people can't be wrong! :)

Rockwell, I don't disagree that what the cable companies are doing is underhanded, perhaps immoral and, as Skeptic said, they are driven by profit as are most companies, with or without stockholders. I think these companies have found their suckers and are all too happy to find more. But with the legions of believers out there, I'm just not convinced that the FTC should have a say in their adverts. Is there anyone on this board that absolutely, unequivocally without a shadow of a doubt say that all cables that are designed to be neutral ARE in fact neutral? Unless and until they've all been tested, that's a leap I don't think most objectivists are ready to make.