The word “free” fills a lot of commercials nowadays, but its meaning is far from clear

I must confess: When I would hear or see the word “free,” I became tingly all over, but today ecstasy has given way to skepticism, wariness and, yes — I admit it — cynicism.

You see, “free” no longer seems to mean “free.”

Just to make sure the word hasn’t undergone a definition shift in recent years while I wasn’t looking, I consulted the newest Webster’s dictionary. There it was — still the same unequivocal definition: “no charge.”
Can’t get much more specific or simpler than that.

When I watch TV, I hear commercials for scores of products, but the new rage these days is upselling. Pitchmen like the late Billy May, who died in late June of an apparent heart attack at age 50, would tell us that not only can we have one of these incredible miracle-working products for $9.95, but we can have another “absolutely free.” Then, after a slight pause, he says: “Pay only shipping and handling.”

The shipping and handling on a $9.95 product usually means another $6, so the second item isn’t really “free.” It is $6.

I don’t get it. Why are these “as seen on TV” products allowed to perpetuate these untruths? When the government seems intent on cracking down on fraudulent claims and consumer scams, these postage-and-handling scams are pervasive, and no one seems to do anything about it. What is even more disturbing, however, is that they are perfectly legal, according to several representatives of consumer groups to whom I have spoken.

Why not require this simple protection for us consumers: Telemarketers cannot claim a product is free if there is a postage-and-handling add-on cost. If there is such a charge, it must be clearly stated in the infomercial or ad. I mean it’s not as if the product gains or loses weight daily. There is no reason why the fixed amount of postage and handling can’t be specifically noted.

I also take issue with some entertainment book offers. “Buy one, get one free,” says the coupon. You don’t really get one free, because you have to buy one first, and that one isn’t free. So why not just a simple change of wording: “Get one when you buy one.” Now, that’s truth in advertising.

Same thing for coffee clubs — buy six, get the seventh cup free. To my way of thinking, the seventh cup is not free if I have to buy the first six.

Vista, a printing company in New England, sends me periodic offers with headers such as “Bruce, today is your lucky day — everything is free.” Vista says I could buy 140 address labels “free.” So why did I wind up having my credit card charged $3.31 if they were “free”? I did the deal, because $3.31 (for postage and handling) is not a bad price for these address labels. Still, I felt I was being taken advantage of after seeing that word “free” in big, bold type. When the package came, the postage was less than 50 cents, so the other $2.81 apparently went for handling, or, more likely, to Vista’s bottom line.

Nutri-System TV ads also are misleading. We see a slim, sensational-looking actress Valerie Bertinelli telling us that she has lost 40 pounds the Nutri-System way. But, wait. What does that small print say? “Results not typical.” Another ad shows a smiling ex-Miami Dolphins football coach Don Shula who lost 30 pounds, but there’s that small print again: “Results not typical.”

If the results are not typical, why not show us the typical results? If Nutri-System were to do that, there wouldn’t be many sales, because most dieters fail to have the necessary will power. Implying that you can lose a lot of weight merely by eating those delicious-looking Nutri-System meals is, of course, misleading on its face, because you need to couple controlling caloric intake with a vigorous exercise program.

Companies which use misleading tactics to sell their products do a disservice to us consumers. We seniors, especially, need to be constantly vigilant, especially when we see that four-letter “f” word  — free.