vol. 2″Can It Really Drive Away Mosquitos?”
- A Mosquito-Repelling Device?
It was a small cylinder that could fit in a pocket. You put a battery in, turn the switch on, and the device would set off a high pitched sound. This sound would then chase away mosquitoes. But really, the product was a SONAR device that could keep transmitting a sound efficiently by using a simple electrical circuit, and its original purpose had nothing to do with mosquitos. In order to give a purpose to the product, the distributor had marketed it? as a mosquito repellant, and had kept steady sales for several years, even though nobody in the tiny wholesale company had ever conducted an experiment to prove that the device really could drive away mosquitos.
- The Rationale of the Repellant
Nevertheless, some sort of logical explanation was necessary to give the product credibility. So, in the instruction manual of the product, the theory of repelling mosquitos was described as follows.
| Only female mosquitos feed on blood. They do so because they need to nourish themselves during their breeding period. And female mosquitos have the habit of avoiding male mosquitos during the laying period. Since male mosquitos transmit a specific wavelength of sound, this device transmits sound waves similar to those transmitted by male mosquitos, so that female mosquitos stay away from it. |
According to a consumer, he was very impressed by this explanation. He said: “I did not know that mosquitos acted in this way. I was amazed that scientists actually researched the sound wave transmitted by male mosquitos in order to develop products. What an ingenious product.”
- Denounced by the Fair Trade Commission As “False Advertising”
Somebody must have told on this company because the Japan Fair Trade Commission called them and demanded proof that the device was capable of driving away mosquitos. Otherwise, sales of the product would be blocked. Other than the mosquito repellant device, the company had few other products to sell, and the repellant device was the only mainstay of their business. If sales of the device were to be blocked, they would have to remove all their goods from store shelves, meanwhile they would also have to pay the outsourcing manufacturer. There was an imminent threat of bankruptcy. ?In desperation, the president of the company came to us asking for help. - How Can We Respond?
We had received requests for applying utility models and trademarks, but we had never handled a case like this…personally, I did not know any biology professors. Even if I succeeded in finding a university laboratory that could conduct the experiment, it would take at least one year to get results. It would be impossible to come up with proof or prepare a certification in only a few months. What can I do to help them…I was taking a bath…and thinking …when I had an epiphany. It occurred to me how the consumers felt when they bought the product. When they bought it, did they really believe that the device costing about 1000 yen (10 US dollars) could actually drive away mosquitos? And if they were actually stung by mosquitos, would they be outraged and complain that the product was false advertising? Rather, I would imagine, they should have taken it more casually – just as a gag, and thought of it as a novelty item. - Our Reply to the Fair Trade Commission
Since the deadline was approaching and there was no other way out, I consulted the president then submitted to the JFTC the following written reply:
| A consumer would buy the product taking it as a sort of “novelty item” to be used as the prize for a golf competition or a placebo to take along when he goes for a walk. We would say it is unprofessional to make a big deal over a product like this and demand medical proof ･･･ |
To our surprise, the JFTC accepted the reply. Needless to say, the president was extremely grateful to us: “Thanks to you, we were spared from bankruptcy.” We have to say? that such an argument would not be valid all the time. Since then, there have been some instances of forced recalls for similar products. ?This particular case was helped by many factors, like the fact that there were hardly any complaints filed against the product and that the cost was low.