Two Lufthansa advertisements displayed in Brussels train stations (posters therefore) were identified by Maxime (Co-founder of GiveActions) as misleading for the consumer. They did not respect ethical rules. A complaint was therefore filed. The ethics panel considered the complaint well-founded and therefore asked to remove the advertisements from advertising posters in Belgium.

‍

‍
This is proof that it is possible to make a difference, even in advertising.

Because yes, the advertising sector has set rules for itself. In order to have advertising that does not deceive the consumer. The main rule is simple: you cannot have an advertisement that contains statements or visual elements that are likely to mislead the consumer.

And this rule applies to ecological issues. You can't pretend that a product or service is good for the environment when that's not the case.

And that's exactly what happened here.

In the first case, the advertisement makes it appear that the plane is there to “protect our future.” Knowing the ecological impact of the plane, it's a bit big. And above all in such a way as to mislead the consumer. In the second case, the plane is transformed into a tree (which is associated with nature, with the environment) with a mention of sustainability. Again, it sends the message that Lufthansa is having a positive impact on the planet.

‍

Certainly, Lufthansa is implementing actions to reduce its footprint. Which is good. Nevertheless, the plane remains very polluting, especially at the individual level. It is therefore a lie to pretend that there is a positive impact linked to all this.

And that's exactly the conclusion of the advertising ethics board (JEP). I quote:

“the Jury is of the opinion that, for both posters, the images, with very explicit references respectively to a natural element and to planet Earth, each time in relation to the plane, in combination with the slogans, with their respective allusions to current “protection” and “sustainability” as such, are likely to convey, in a vague and general way, the message that promoted air transport would bring about all sorts of advantages environmental.”

This ad can therefore no longer be broadcast in Belgium.

‍

A LinkedIn post that gets the Belgian press talking about it

It's proof that we can have an impact on society. Maxime's LinkedIn post on this subject had crazy visibility. +300,000 views, hundreds of comments. And even A cover by the Belgian press (Le Soir and La Libre) and by a travel blog.

Few people knew about the existence of advertising rules. With this complaint, businesses and consumers learned a bit more about advertising rules. A good thing for the future. Advertising must play a role in the ecological and social transition. And we can all be a part of it.

‍

‍

In conclusion, we would like to add that our aim is absolutely not an aviation witch hunt. But you can't get those messages across in 2022. It is extremely dangerous for the protection of our planet. We have nothing against Lufthansa, but we are against misleading messages. And if the JEP agreed with Maxime, it was not for nothing. We must therefore continue to fight against the promotion of messages that are likely to deceive consumers in terms of ecology. You can count on us for this.

You can find the opinion of the JEP hither

‍