- 0 Comments
- Business, Content Marketing, Marketing, SEO, Websites
When Your Founder Becomes Your Biggest Brand Risk: Lessons From the Sam Wood Rebrand An eight-star energy rating would ordinarily be a compelling selling point for a household appliance. With electricity costs continuing to influence purchasing decisions, consumers have good reason to prioritise products that promise greater efficiency. However, one of the products recognised in CHOICE’s 2026 Shonky Awards demonstrates how an impressive marketing claim can tell only part of the story. A Hisense washer-dryer combination has attracted criticism after consumer advocacy group CHOICE highlighted that its most energy-efficient washing and drying programs take more than 25 hours to complete consecutively. While the appliance’s energy ratings comply with the relevant testing standards, the time required to achieve those results raises questions about how accurately product marketing reflects everyday consumer experiences. The appliance is among several products and services recognised in the 2026 Shonky Awards, which highlight practices CHOICE considers unfair, misleading or disappointing for Australian consumers. Beyond the entertaining headlines, this year’s awards offer an important examination of the relationship between advertising claims, consumer expectations and brand reputation. For businesses of every size, they reinforce a fundamental marketing principle: a claim can be technically accurate without necessarily providing customers with a realistic understanding of what they are purchasing. When an impressive product claim doesn’t tell the whole story The Hisense Series 8i Heat Pump Washer Dryer Combo demonstrates the distinction between compliance with testing standards and the practical value of a product’s advertised features. According to CHOICE, the appliance’s energy-efficient drying program takes approximately 13.5 hours to complete, while the washing program associated with its five-star washing rating requires more than 12 hours. Together, the programs take more than 25 hours, a timeframe that may be impractical for households purchasing a combination appliance partly for its convenience. Importantly, the energy ratings themselves are not necessarily inaccurate. Hisense has indicated that the appliance was tested according to the applicable Australian and New Zealand standards, which allow manufacturers to nominate particular programs for energy-efficiency testing. The concern lies in the relationship between the advertised benefit and the conditions required to achieve it. An energy rating provides useful information about a product’s performance under standardised testing conditions. However, consumers may reasonably interpret a highly efficient washer-dryer as an appliance that delivers both energy savings and practical everyday performance. If achieving the advertised efficiency requires substantially longer operating times than expected, that distinction becomes relevant to the purchasing decision. This illustrates a broader challenge in product marketing. Businesses frequently promote measurable advantages such as efficiency, speed, durability or cost savings, but those claims can lose their practical meaning when important qualifications are not communicated effectively. The strongest marketing communicates not only what a product can achieve, but also the circumstances in which customers can reasonably expect those results. The gap between business policies and customer expectations Other recipients of the 2026 Shonky Awards demonstrate how dissatisfaction can arise even when businesses operate within established policies and contractual arrangements. Virgin Australia was recognised over the expiry of unused COVID-era flight credits. CHOICE highlighted the airline’s recognition of approximately $75 million in expired credits, representing money associated with travel bookings that customers had not ultimately used. Virgin Australia has defended its handling of the credits, stating that more than 93 per cent were redeemed and pointing to the extensions and communications provided to affected customers. Nevertheless, the issue illustrates how differently businesses and consumers can interpret the same transaction. From an operational perspective, a company may consider an obligation fulfilled once the relevant conditions, deadlines and notifications have been applied. Customers, however, are more likely to evaluate the experience according to whether they received reasonable value for the money they originally spent. Ticketing companies Ticketek and Ticketmaster also attracted criticism, with CHOICE raising concerns about pricing practices associated with popular events. Among the examples highlighted were NRL tickets offered at substantially higher prices than comparable nearby seats. While ticketing companies have defended their pricing arrangements, including the role of event organisers in determining prices, the criticism reflects a wider consumer concern about transparency and purchasing pressure. For customers attempting to secure tickets to a popular event, the combination of limited availability, virtual queues and variable pricing can make it difficult to evaluate whether an offer represents reasonable value. These examples involve different industries, products and commercial arrangements, yet they share a common issue. The customer’s perception of fairness is not determined solely by whether a business has complied with its stated conditions. It is also shaped by how clearly those conditions were communicated and whether the resulting experience matched reasonable expectations. Why transparency has become a competitive advantage Marketing has traditionally focused heavily on attracting attention, communicating benefits and encouraging customers to take action. While these remain essential functions, increasingly informed consumers also expect businesses to explain the conditions and limitations associated with their offers. This expectation has particular significance in digital environments, where customers frequently compare products, consult independent reviews and investigate competing claims before making purchasing decisions. Transparency can influence the entire customer relationship, from the first interaction with an advertisement through to the experience of using a product or service. A business that communicates limitations openly may initially appear less persuasive than a competitor promoting only its strongest selling points. However, realistic expectations can contribute to better purchasing decisions, fewer misunderstandings and more positive customer experiences. Consider a service provider advertising a rapid turnaround time. If that timeframe applies only to straightforward jobs under particular conditions, communicating those qualifications helps customers assess whether the service meets their needs. Similarly, an online retailer promoting fast delivery should make geographical restrictions or processing delays readily accessible rather than relying on customers to discover them during checkout. The objective is not to overwhelm prospective customers with technical details or lengthy disclaimers. Effective communication requires businesses to identify which information is material to a purchasing decision and present it in a way that is accessible and understandable. In Australia, this principle also has a regulatory dimension.
Learn More