opinion: Ray S. KALWAJTYS, Walter J. Kalwajtys, Bernice Kalwajtys, and Weronika Kalwajtys, individually and as co-partners, doing business as General Products, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.
  No. 11721.
  United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
  Oct. 30, 1956.
  Arthur Abraham, Mandel L. Anixter, Ralph J. Gutgsell, Chicago, 111., for petitioner.
  Robert B. Dawkins, Asst. General Counsel, Alvin L. Berman, Atty., Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., Earl W. Kintner, General Counsel, Washington, D. C., Attys. for Federal Trade Commission.
  Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.
  DUFFY, Chief Judge.
  This is a petition to ■ review and set aside a cease and desist order of the Commission. The complaint charged petitioners with having engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 41 et seq. The practices complained of were in connection with the sale and distribution of photograph albums and certificates for photographs.
  Petitioners manufacture and sell photograph albums known as “Build-A-Book” which is the product here involved. The method of distribution is by 300 to 350 salesmen who obtain orders through personal solicitation. The names of prospects are obtained from public birth records.
  There is no dispute as to the approach used by petitioners’ salesmen. Petitioners prepared a very detailed sales presentation which was given to each salesman. A considerable portion of the instructions were to be used verbatim, and the balance closely followed.
  A few excerpts from these instructions follow:
  “1) Door Opener. The salesman looks at a 3 x 5 card on which he has recorded the name and address of the prospect and says, ‘I’m looking for the John Jones Family. * * * Are you Mrs. Jones? ■x- * * Mrs. Jones, I am from General Products. * * * We have, in reality, a gift for selected families with (a baby) or (a young child). The reason we check so close is because the gifts are quite expensive and they have been promised to a selected number of families and, * * we want to be sure we have the right families. I have it here with me so if you have a moment I’ll just step in and find out how you want it engraved and I’ll show you how to assemble it.’ ”
  “2) In the Home. After gaining admittance to the house and being seated next to the prospect the representative states, ‘First of all, Mrs. Jones, I’d like to mention that our combination offer is in reality your gift * * * through an advertising appropriation for new products. You see, we have spent money on advertising for 18 years, the same as other manufacturers who spend millions on Radio, T.V. and magazines, or like cereal companies who spend money for samples left in your doorway.’ * * * After some discourse, the salesman is instructed to ask ‘How do you like your Build-A-Book, Mrs. Jones?’ ”
  Then comes the instruction “Certificate Opener” which the salesman is required to memorize. “Now, you are probably wondering why we are giving you this beautiful Family Album as a combination gift. * * * the purpose is this. Each album that we place in the home will bring us from three to five new customers each year. In other words, it is placed with you on an advertising basis. The Family Album is, to us, a showcase in your home. (Explanation that a show case must have portraits). With this in mind we are also going to help you fill your album * *
  Up to this point the salesman has said nothing to indicate the album is for sale. He next explains the certificates whereby Mrs. Jones can obtain 10 portraits for $39.95, which the salesman states covers labor and cost. He then speaks of a “once in a lifetime combination offer” of the photographs and album for $39.95.
  On August 8, 1955 the hearing examiner filed an initial decision containing his findings, conclusions and a cease and desist order. The Commission thereafter denied an appeal and adopted the findings, conclusions and order of the hearing examiner. Among the findings were that the petitioners had represented to prospective purchasers that: 1) they were to receive a gift of an album which was being presented only to selected families with a baby or young child, and that only a few of such albums would be given in the area; 2) the album was free, and that the charge was for photographs to be taken thereafter; 3) the $39.95 price which was charged for the album-certificate combination was a promotional and reduced price. The Commission also found that petitioners’ representations were false, misleading and deceptive, and that they had the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public; that substantial trade in commerce has been unfairly diverted to petitioners from their competitors and substantial injury has thereby been done to competition in commerce. The Commission concluded that the acts and practices of petitioners were to the prejudice and injury of the public and of petitioners’ competitors, and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
  The challenged portion of the Commission’s, order would require petitioners, in selling albums and certificates for photographs, to refrain from representing directly dr by implication: a) that they sell only to selected persons; b) that their albums are given free or without cost; c) that the prices at which they regularly or customarily sell their products ai’e promotional or reduced prices.
  ■ Petitioners insist the Commission’s order should be set aside because the representations made by their salesmen were true. Petitioners say their prospective customers were, in fact, “selected”; that the word “few” is a relative term of great elasticity, and that the price of $39.95 was, in fact, promotional because it was intended to promote the sale of their albums.
  A statement may be deceptive even if the constituent words may be literally or technically construed so as to not constitute a misrepresentation. Rothschild v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 200 F.2d 39, 42; D.D.D. Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 125 F.2d 679, 681. The buying public does not weigh each word in an advertisement or a representation. It is-important to ascertain the impression that- is likely to be created upon the prospective purchaser. See Aronberg v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 132 F.2d 165, 167.
  ■ The meaning of advertisements or other representations to the public, and their tendency or capacity to mislead or deceive, are questions of fact to be determined by the Commission and should be upheld by a reviewing Court unless arbitrary or clearly wrong. Rhodes Pharmacal Co., Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 208 F.2d 382, 387; Parker Pen Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 159 F.2d 509, 511. Petitioners do not contest the findings of the Commission that the albums were not, in fact, given free, but contend that no one could have been misled. "We think the'Commission was warranted in. reaching a contrary conclusion.
  In Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Education Society, 302 U.S. 112, 113-117, 58 S.Ct. 113, 82 L.Ed. 141, the Court approved the Commission’s findings that practices quite similar to'those involved in the case at bar were false, deceptive and misleading. The Supreme Court held that representing that 'encyclopedias were a gift made for advertising purposes; that prospective cus.-: tomers were specially- selected persons; that the purchasers were paying only for a loose-leaf extension service (and not for the encyclopedia); that the price quoted was a reduced price, were all parts of the same sales plan and the Commission was justified in proscribing such practices.
  In Consolidated Book Publishers v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 53 F.2d 942, 944 this Court sustained a Commission’s order which prohibited representations that a few sets of a publication were being given free for advertising purposes when no gift was intended and that purchasers were paying only for a loose-leaf supplement to a publication or for certain services in connection therewith when, in fact, the price asked covered the book and the services.
  We think the findings of the Commission are supported by substantial evidence. We agree with the conclusions of the Commission that petitioners were engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in commerce. The petition to set aside the cease and desist order of the Commission will be denied, and enforcement of the order of the Commission is
  Ordered.
  . The complaint contained other charges but a consent order was stipulated as to some. There are also other portions of tlie Oommission’s cease and desist order which petitioners are not here contesting.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.