The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1916-02-01

the common property of all who sell
the same product.
but. per contra, these ethics evi
IDENTIFY admit of any advertiser claim
ing for his product, as exclusive fea
lures such features are common to
all, or to others, who make the same
grade of product, the theory of this
kind of advertising being that he who
boldly claims that feature. through
the widest publicity is inferred By
the public to be the only manufactur.
er who has that feature in his pro.
duct, in other words, to deceive the
public into thinking that his is the
only product, on the market, POSSESS.
ins that feature.
| Apparently this is considered
ethical in advertising although it is
deliberately intended to deceive tnc
reader and, by false pretences, take
away from other manufacturers of
similar product, possessing the same
feature, part of the market which. On
the merits of their goods, rightfully
belongs to them.
Apparently too, it is considered
! unethical for the other manufacturers
to even protest against this in their
own advertising, or to show up in
print, over their own names, the de.
ception practiced against their own
market, by the untruthful claim of
ethical competitors.
THE only course left open to The
Injured manufacturer Gf he wishes to
be considered ethicaD is to either sit
still and let his truth stretching com.
petitor thus steal his market or
through the same kind of ethical adj
vertising, claim all the things his
competitor claimed, and somewhat
outstretch him in the claiming of
them.
1--WE do not believe that this is good
for the ultimate interest of advertis.
ing in general or for tire selling in
particular. For the advertiser, in
the end, must pay the piper for all
the stretching of advertising through
discounted credence.
1--WE are prompted to make state
ment like this, because we think IT q
wholesome subject for the tire indus.
try to consider.
1--WE are not assuming a Holier
than Thou, attitude, nor indulging in
plea for good principle alone, tho
that alone should justify it.
1--WE say it because we believe that
many other worthy advertisers think
It, and would gladly cooperate with
1t, if someone set the pace, as a
sound business policy, for multiplying
results from advertising for all tire
advertisers.
1--WE say it, too, because the Good.
rich Company, more than other tire
manufacturing concerns, has suffered
damage from competitive advertising
which claimed, Or implied claim to,
exclusive features in product, equip
ment, Or method, which features had
long been common with US, as the
daddy Of all tire building concerns.
"When rubber concern makes.
FOR instance, 100000 tires in a year
and then advertises to have far, far
greater output than any other tire
maker in America, it is mighty try
ing for another rubber concern, CThe
D. F. Goodrich Co.. which makes
more than 2,95O0OO tires in the same
period Of time, to be ethical, to sit
still, and let the differences, that go
with the competitors false claims.
carry.
at is true that the public cares
little who makes, or sells the NEST
tires, who made the first pneumatic
tire, first white rubber tire, the first
black tread tire, or the first genuine
cord tire. The public cares chiefly
for who delivers the best value in
t1TeS 10 We iSoIiSS eh'Sp
and so concentrate upon 1t.
"But since best value to consum'
ers is dependent not only upon the
intention and good faith, of each
manufacturer, but also upon his ex-
perience, equipment, and volume Of
production, misleading claims by
competitors, are a damage to that
manufacturer who actually does
make and sell the most tires, Of a
given quality, at the lowest price, or
did initiate the true pace making
tire features.
Now, for example we know that
no rubber concern makes in these
United States of America, so many