• The Copywriter

  • Recent Posts



  • Recent Comments

    • Taylor: Couldn’t agree more. I am actually doing a project for my Writing class on how male steriotypes effect...
    • A Random Vegan: Not all vegans associate with PETA. I sure as shit don’t. And while you may think all vegans...
    • Kyle McFarlin: Walter, This is one of those ‘you killed it’ posts I hope everyone including me follows....
    • mark: If this guy really has expertise then shooting questions at him over a recorded phone call will probably start...
    • Walter: Didn’t even come close to making it right, Kyle. Sadly, our favorite coffee company is another...
    • Kyle McFarlin: As a HUGE fan of Starbucks and someone who is considering the very card you speak of, I hope they make...
    • Tom Humes: Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you. Tom Humes
    • henrry134: Great place to clarify our doubts with the internet marketers. It sounds great that they are virtually...
    • Kyle McFarlin: Good luck winning the contest. Once you have Infusion, I think you’ll find out about cousins you...
  • Twitter Connect

  • ROI Tip Jar

    Enjoying the content? Then feel free to drop in a couple of bucks and buy me a Starbucks Grande Americano! Click to donate »

  • « Walter’s Anti Social Media - What’s The ROI, Kenneth?* | Home | Visual Strategy For Both Lives — The ROI »

    Marketing False Claims About ‘Lawsuit Abuse’

    From the diligent researchers at FactCheck.org comes another expose of corporate fraud perpetuated on the American taxpayer — this one by the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and a consulting company that describes itself as ”leader in consulting to the insurance and financial services industry.” Did you catch who their clients are? That will be important in a moment.

    Read the report and come back so we can finish up.

    A False Ad About ‘Lawsuit Abuse’

    May 11, 2007

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce misrepresents a study.

    Summary

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is running a TV ad alleging that “lawsuit abuse” is costing “your family” $3,500 a year. That’s false. The figure is from a study that estimates the cost of all lawsuits, not just abusive ones.

    Even the author of the study cited by the chamber says its ad is “misleading.”

    Source: FactCheck.org: A False Ad About ‘Lawsuit Abuse’

    Now, knowing that they consult for the insurance industry which has a vested interest in coloring the data so they can push their agenda of getting caps put on lawsuit judgements (which insurance companies pay).

    See the difference between what the data revealed and how they tried to spin it?

    See folks, Sgt. Joe Friday had it right when he said, “Just the facts, ma’am.” When you remove the emotionalism, the sensationalism and the hidden agenda of others from the equation — all you have are the facts of the case. And when there’s only the bare facts, it’s harder to spin the data into an agenda-driven direction.

    Now let’s apply these same careful examination of what’s fact and what’s not to other hot-button issues like global-warming-blame-the-humans crowd.

    Last year I wrote about how Michael Crichton was right. If nothing else, just read the Appendix in the back of his book “State Of Fear.” Not only will you be a wiser person, but the next time someone throws out some official-sounding research you’ll be smart enough to ask two simple questions:

    1. “Who funded the research?”
    2. “And what do you mean when you use that phrase (then insert the hot-button subject matter)?”

    If the data is still suspicious, then ask question #1 again. Rinse and repeat until you get a satisfactory answer, the opposing party realizes the error of their ways, or the other person’s head explodes.

    All are acceptable resolutions.

    Like what you read? Then click here to buy me a coffee.

    By Walter |

    Topics: Pet Peeves, Pro Analysis |


    To Read More Like This, See . . .

    Comments