[ad_1]
A year ago High school, a Chilean supermarket chain that controls Unimarc, denounced Leader before the Self-Regulation and Advertising Ethics Council (Conar) for an advertisement whose protagonist was the journalist Emilio sutherland, known as “Uncle Emilio”.
Lider’s advertising piece spread the phrase “Total + Low”, in which the communicator – very much in the tone of his program “In his own trap” – called to review the ballots to verify that the chain belonging to Walmart always offered the most convenient prices.
What was it that bothered Unimarc ?: In the commercial, Sutherland compared a Lider ticket with another for similar purchases showing more than $ 40,000 difference. Visually, red hues were indirectly alluded to, very similar to SMU’s corporate colors.
In this context, the Conar ruled in favor of SMU and Lider should have lowered the publicity.
On this same case, during the last hours Diario Financiero published that there is a civil judgment, following a lawsuit filed in March.
Unimarc’s controller insisted that the campaign caused it damage, undermined and damaged its image with customers, therefore would be demanding compensation.
Felipe Bulnes, a lawyer for the company, explained in the lawsuit that the fact that Sutherland was the face of the campaign also contributed to a different connotation, since it is a face “recognized for exposing deceitful subjects, who deceive customers (…)”.
“(…) It has the aptitude and effect of harming this party (SMU) with the loss of clientele and the consequent economic damages derived from it “said the professional in the document, mentioned by the aforementioned medium.
Lider, for his part, reiterated that there was no unfair competition on his part and that SMU has also incurred in advertising pieces that allude to its market rivals.
“The action presented has no legal basis and we have sustained it in all the corresponding instances,” argued Walmart through attorney Nicole Nehme.
Last year the American had already said that its campaigns tthey had “solid foundations” and “objective” evidence; while SMU explained that “to make comparisons you have to be cautious” and that advertising confused consumers.
[ad_2]
