A Code of Ethics for Telescope Advertising

By Michael Covington

February 2001 Sky & Telescope Magazine (Focal Point) 

How often have you had to caution someone that the "Amazing 675-power telescope" in a toy store can't actually be used at 675x, and that the views through it will be nothing like the space-probe pictures on the box?

Then there was that newspaper ad for "Super-Powerful 100 Billion Miles Deep Space Telescopes" with which you can watch "asteroids collide in fiery explosions" and view "Distant Galaxies, such as The Milky Way." I'm not making this up!

It's time to call these things what they are: False or Misleading Advertising Claims. It is wrong, and generally illegal, to mislead would be purchasers about the capabilities of things you're selling.

But when misleading claims are the norm, even reputable telescope makers have to play the 675-Power game to compete with their less-scrupulous rivals. After all, these telescopes DO magnify 675 times, though the images are dim and blurred and the eye relief is almost nil.

That's why we need a code of ethics for advertising telescopes. The whole industry needs to agree on what kinds of claims are realistic. Here's what I propose :

   (1) Aperture shall be advertised at least as prominently as the maximum magnification, and this shall be the telescope's working aperture-- not the size of an optical part that's yielding a smaller effective size due to an aperture stop or careless design. (Sky & telescope recently tested a "4 1/4-inch" telescope whose usable aperture was only 2.8 inches. OUCH!)

   (2) Advertised magnification shall not exceed 2X per millimeter of aperture (50x per inch), nor require an eyepiece with less then 4 mm of eye relief. (this turns the "675x telescope into a 60-mm 120x telescope," and it gets rid of the horrible, standard-issue eyepieces with very short focal lengths.)

   (3) Pictures of celestial objects used in ads or on packaging must indicate realistically what the telescope can show. Enough of those color-enhanced Voyager images!

   (4) Meaningless superlative language, such as "Super-High-Power," shall be avoided.

   (5) Defects present at the time of manufacture shall be corrected regardless of how long it takes the owner or subsequent purchaser to discover them. (A one-year warranty is not enough. Some recent amateur telescopes have been shipped with electronic-drive problems that don't become apparent until you start doing serious astrophotography.)

These guidelines could be implemented as a voluntary code of ethics--abide by them, and you get to display a special seal in your advertising. Better still, I think we should ask the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to incorporate this code into there regulations.

Before you say "Whoa, there-- we don't need more federal intervention," remember that plenty of regulations already define the language used in advertising. you can't sell "ice cream" that contains no cream or "butter" that is not made from milk. Nor can you advertise a "100-watt" stereo amplifier  unless it actually performs well at 100 watts of output in an official test procedure. Plenty of companies did so in the 1960's, until the FTC (supported by reputable manufacturers) adopted regulation to specify how amplifier wattage is measured. Now audio-equipment makers advertise only the wattage that delivers consistently good sound.   

That's just like what I propose to do with telescope magnification. Such standards don't interfere with free-market competition-- they help it.

The telescope industry has tried to raise standards on it's own, but it hasn't done enough. The Japan Camera Inspection Institute used to certify that telescopes could achieve the advertised magnifications, though it didn't judge whether those magnifications were practical. The Telescope Optics Manufacturers Association, which formed in the late 1980's (S&T: September 1990,page 314), is no longer active. Internationally recognized ISO standards for telescopes appear to be in the works, but no one will be required to follow them.

Why not just "let the buyer beware," you might ask? Because first-time telescope buyers aren't qualified to judge their instruments. They don't know whether all telescopes are as bad as the one they're stuck with, or even whether a telescope would perform better with a mirror upgrade, such as using a good 25-mm eyepiece. Even a serious defect may go unrecognized until the owner acquires several years of experience.

Let's stop letting optical P.T Barnum's kill off beginners' interest in astronomy. Small telescopes with good low-power eyepieces can perform well. Honest merchants shouldn't have to face unfair competition from thoes who are less honest or less realistic.