Kerosene Heater Makers Defend Claim On Cost

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29205, 16 May 1960, Page 3

Kerosene Heater Makers Defend Claim On Cost

The kerosene heater manufacturers who claimed in an advertisement that their product was 50 per cent, cheaper to operate than a two-bar electric radiator, say the claim is substantiated by reputable statistics.

However the manufacturers have instructed their advertising agency to withdraw the claim from future advertisements. This information is given by the agency in a reply for the manufacturers to a correspondent who questioned the accuracy of the claim.

“This is in no way an admission that they consider the correspondent has proved his point, but merely to terminate a damaging and misleading controversy,” says the agency. In their first reply to the correspondent, “Sparks,” the manufacturers quoted figures from a publication, “Oil Heat Guide,” which was produced by an oil company. Government Figures

“Sparks” says in his second letter:—

“Your advertiser draws his information from a publication issued by an oil company whose interest is the sale of kerosene. My facts are drawn from the unbiased Government publication, “Handbook on the Insulation and Heating of Building,” in which the author, Dr. Lyndon Bastings, of the D.5.1.R., states ‘that no matter how one gallon of kerosene is burnt it is impossible to obtain more than 159,000 units of heat.

“To produce 100,000 units of heat by electricity in Christchurch it costs 20.4 d and by kerosene costing 2s 9d a gallon it costs 20.75 d, not 20d as stated by your advertiser. It is impossible to obtain from any kerosene heater 40 per cent, more heat costing 50 per ceqt. less than a two-bar electric radiator.” Replying for the manufacturers the advertising agency says:— “Our principals do not propose to indulge in lengthy arguments on this question, but only to say that the claiim is made on the basis of reputable statistics. “These show that there is a wide diversity in the charges for electricity in the various districts in which ‘The Press’ circulates and that, within these charges, the claim they made can be established.

“The correspondent, however, has chosen to take the lowest possible figures for electricity (Christchurch city) and continues to quote kerosene charges at the highest rates. He also, quite unjustifiably, assumes that every household will use at least 363

units of electricity a month exclusive of heating. “It would surely be fairer to divide the total units into the total price and take the average unit rate, which in Lyttelton is 1.7 d a unit (flat rate) or 49.54 d a therm. South Canterbury, IJd per unit (flat rate) or 51d a therm. Greymouth, ljd a unit (lowest rate) or 51d a therm.

“Compare these figures with kerosene at the highest rate in each area, in Lyttelton at 20d a therm and the other two areas at 21.82 d a therm.

“Samples of other power costs (taken at the lowest rates where a graduated scale exists) in “The Press" circulation area are: Marlborough, lid a unit; Banks Peninsula, 2jd a unit (for light, heat and power); Ashburton, IJd a unit; Riccarton, l.ld a unit; North Canterbury, lid a unit; Kaikoura. light and space heating 7d a unit. Average Rate “The average power rate for all power boards in ‘The Press’ circulation area is 1.57 d and this figure is based on the lowest rates. At this rate, electricity is more than twice as expensive as kerosene is at the highest price anyone will pay for it. anywhere.

“Our principals feel that they have nothing to retract, but as they are also reluctant to continue an argument with an anonymous writer on grounds and figures which he selects himself, or to appear to be making any claims which can be questioned, they have instructed that their advertising will, in future, drop the 50 per cent, claim.”