返回档案库

案例库 · 广告与公关 · 市场决策 · 2026

这条还没译成中文,下面是英文原文。

Praktikertjänst's 'Sweden's most satisfied patients' ad — the asterisk named the parent

Bjärreds vårdcentral's ad said 'register with Sweden's most satisfied patients' — the asterisk only proved the Praktikertjänst cooperative, not the clinic.

Praktikertjänst Bjärreds vårdcentral · 2026-06-16

怎么回事

Praktikertjänst Bjärreds vårdcentral ran an ad on dn.se with a yellow speech bubble reading 'Together we make a difference in practice', followed by 'Register at the healthcare center with Sweden's most satisfied patients*'.

A smaller footnote explained that Bjärreds Vårdcentral is part of Praktikertjänst, which per SKR and Svenskt Kvalitetsindex has had Sweden's most satisfied patients for ten years. The advertiser's logo sat at the bottom.

A complainant said the ad was misleading: the large-type claim implied this specific centre had Sweden's most satisfied patients, while the asterisk only supported satisfaction for the Praktikertjänst cooperative as a whole, not Bjärreds.

Praktikertjänst argued the ad was truthful, that the asterisk signalled the claim must be read with the footnote, and that the footnote clearly attributed the record to the cooperative. The Opinionsnämnd disagreed, finding an average consumer would read the prominent claim with the 'Bjärreds vårdcentral' sender as meaning the advertiser itself had Sweden's most satisfied patients, which was not substantiated. The asterisk did not neutralise it. The ad breached Article 5 of the ICC Code, unanimously.

为什么会这样

  • A superlative framed against the sender is read as the sender's own, however the footnote is worded
  • The asterisk pointed at the parent cooperative's decade-long record, not the clinic that signed the ad
  • Prominence won: the big claim carried the message and the small print could not undo it
代价Ruling: ad misleading; claim unsubstantiated丢脸

教训

A superlative pinned to the sender is read as the sender's own. An asterisk that points at the parent company's record does not save a headline that names the clinic.

后来呢

The Opinionsnämnd unanimously found the Bjärreds vårdcentral ad misleading under Article 5 of the ICC Code. The prominent satisfaction claim was read as applying to the clinic itself, and the footnote attributing the record to the Praktikertjänst cooperative did not correct that impression.

资料来源

发现哪里写错了?告诉我们。

Comments · 0

    登录 后就能评论。

    类似的案例

    这家公司栽倒的地方,别处有人漂亮地解开过。 第二意见 →