Given the shocking facts regarding the health risks, I’ve always thought cigarettes should be even more heavily regulated, if not banned outright here in the U.S.

Imagine my delight when I learned the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services are proposing graphic, somewhat gruesome, warning labels on all cigarettes.

Here they are:

With big tobacco’s long, storied history of blatant lies and deception, the only way these companies will ever market responsibly is if they are forced to do so.

Agree or disagree?

Subscribe to this feed.

But your positioning has to be more than simply unique and matter to your prospects. It has to be true, too.

With that in mind, watch this:

View on YouTube

If you are selling “the world’s toughest phone” that’s “virtually unbreakable,” perhaps it should be.

While Sonim XP1 CEO Bob Plaschke handled this with an amazing amount of grace, the fact is it would appear to some that this is nothing more than another hollow marketing claim.

Persuasion, good.
Puffery, bad.

Not just because you might get caught. It’s because it doesn’t respect the people that ultimately pay the bills—your customers.

Is Sonim guilty of the age-old marketer’s practice of marketing puffery? Considering their “unbreakable” phone broke, does it really matter?

What do you think?

Subscribe to this feed.

On Thursday, it ran a mock news article promoting NBC’s Southland on the front page:

View PDF version from the Wall Street Journal

On Sunday, the L.A. Times ran a four-page ad for the movie “The Soloist,” laid out like a news section.

Passing off advertising as content has been done before. We discussed a far more clever execution last year when AMC bought several pages and the cover of Ad Age to promote its Mad Men series last summer.

Is it smart?

The fact is passing off advertising as content is seldom this brazen, but it is common. There’s good reason to do it: nobody watches TV, listens to the radio or reads a newspaper for the ads. They are there for the content.

This is one way to slip advertising past the consumer before they change the channel, turn the page or boop it forward on the TiVO.

Or deceptive?

Geneva Overholser, director of the school of journalism at the USC, called the ad “deeply offensive,” and went on to say—

Readers don’t want to be fooled, they don’t like the notion that someone is attempting to deceive them. This breaks perhaps the most important bond that newspapers have with their readers, which, to me, is a bond of trust.

So what do you think?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

Thanks to Martin Pierce for the tip.

Well, as we discussed here before, the credit report from FreeCreditReport.com isn’t free and as you might guess, the PrivacyGuard offer has plenty of strings attached, too.

Even though I’ve only rented from Budget once, they were nice enough to sell share my personal contact information with PrivacyGuard.

Here’s the classic cash-the-check-and-you’ll-sign-up-for-our-overpriced-service-indefinitely-if-you-aren’t-paying-attention offers they sent me recently:

Here’s a key section from the fine print on the back of the check:

By cashing this check I agree to a thirty-day trial offer in PrivacyGuard. I understand that the $64.99 semi-annual membership fee will be automatically billed to the card I have on file with Budget unless I cancel my membership by calling 1-866-622-5186 before the end of the trial period. My membership will be automatically renewed and I will also be billed every six month period thereafter at $74.99 or the then-current fee unless I call to cancel for a refund of the unused portion of the current fee.

So, cash the check, and here’s what happens:

1. You are automatically signing up for their service
2. You are giving Budget permission to pass your credit card info to PrivacyGuard
3. You will pay $64.99 immediately (kiss your $10 goodbye)
4. You are agreeing to pay $74.99 or the then current fee (it could be any number) from that point forward

Oh, the irony: Budget has sold their customers personal information to a company marketing a product that’s supposed to protect—that’s right—personal information.

When I see offers like these, I think about my dearly-departed grandparents. Would they have been fooled by an official-looking check coming from the “Processing Center.”

I don’t know if I’d go so far as calling this marketing practice predatory, but it’s clearly deceptive.

All that being said, offers like this have been around for years and won’t go away.

Why?

They work. It fools some of the people some of the time.

What’s more, people that read the fine print cash the checks as well, thinking they can game the system. Sometimes they do, but often they forget. The charges get lost in their credit card statement, and three years later they are still paying.

It happens all the time. They’re counting on it.

So, is the PrivacyGuard offer responsible or not? How about Budget selling customer data?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

The Coca-Cola Company is being sued by the Center for Science in the Public Interest for deceptive claims regarding it’s VitaminWater product line.

Coke markets VitaminWater as a “healthful alternative to soda by labeling its several flavors with such health buzz words,” and claims they “variously reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of eye disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function.”

The CSPI news release further asserts, “VitaminWater contains between zero and one percent juice, despite the full names of the drinks, which include “endurance peach mango” and “focus kiwi strawberry,” and “xxx blueberry pomegranate acai,” among others. A press release for the “xxx” drink claims its antioxidants makes the drinker “last longer” in some unspecified way; in any event, it has no blueberry, pomegranate, or acai juice, nor do the others have any cranberry, grapefruit, dragon fruit, peach, mango, kiwi, or strawberry juice.”

Here’s Coke’s response to the CSPI lawsuit:

This is a ridiculous and ludicrous lawsuit. glacéau vitaminwater is a great tasting, hydrating beverage with essential vitamins and water, with labels showing calorie content.

Filing a lawsuit is an opportunistic PR stunt. This is not about protecting the public interest. This is about grandstanding at a time when CSPI is receiving very little attention. There is no surprise that one week before the inauguration of the U.S. President, with the flurry of activity in Washington, D.C., that CSPI has chosen today to try to bring attention to themselves.

We don’t need a “healthful” alternative to sodas. All our beverages, including sparkling and diets, can be part of healthful diet. Furthermore, consumers today are aware and are looking for more from their beverages than just hydration. Products like glacéau vitaminwater provide a great tasting choice for hydration that also helps contribute to daily needs for some essential nutrients.

Consumers can readily see the nutrition facts panels on every bottle of glacéau vitaminwater, which show what’s in our product and what’s not. The success of glacéau vitaminwater is due in large part to consumers looking for a product like this to help support their healthy, active and on-the-go lifestyle.

Put simply, glacéau vitaminwater is a great complement to our often less-than-perfect diet with each of the different glacéau vitaminwater varieties providing a convenient, great-tasting way to get more of some of the vitamins and hydration we all need each day.

Public opinion on the topic is polarized, as you might expect.

So who do you believe? VitaminWater or the CSPI?

Is VitaminWater responsible or not?

Subscribe to this feed.

Image: The Coca-Cola Company

First, what’s “astroturfing?”

Roughly, it’s when formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seek to create the impression of spontaneous “grassroots” behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.*

On Friday, The Daily Background Blog revealed that a Belkin employee was doing just that: Paying 65 cents for perfect reviews on Buy.com, NewEgg.com and Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk, where people can receive micropayments for small technical tasks computers can’t do.

To their credit, Belkin’s CEO responded over the weekend, stating that “Belkin does not participate in, nor does it endorse, unethical practices like this.” The company went on to take responsibility, asked forgiveness and claimed Belkin will remove all the false reviews and posts on Mechanical Turk.

Hats off to Belkin for the quick response—this is exactly the way this should have been handled and they’ve surely avoided even more negative word of mouth.

But I ask you, Responsible Marketer, at what point do we hold a company accountable for the actions of its representatives? Is all forgiven with Belkin? Could this have been avoided?

Seems like a great argument for social media training to me, but what do you think?

Subscribe to this feed.

Thanks to Freddy Nager at Atomic Tango for sharing the Belkin story with me.
*My revision of the Wikipedia definition

Marketing is about persuasion, so occasionally marketers stretch the truth.

But how bad is a company when it mocks it’s own advertising in a court of law?

Pretty bad.

Countrywide Home Loans is no stranger to litigation and is considered by some to be among those lenders most responsible for the mortgage crisis.

Maybe it should come as no surprise when then they call their own advertising “mere commercial puffery.”

Loan modifications have been marketed throughout the industry as homeowners sold irresponsible adjustable rate mortgages scramble to find a way to avoid foreclosure and pay their ballooning mortgage payments. Countrywide’s current modification offers say “We can help you,” while they pursue foreclosures against customers seeking just that.

From MSNBC.com:

Saying the modification offers are “only Countrywide’s vague advertisements,” attorneys for the lender are asking the court to throw out a lawsuit alleging breach of good faith, fraud, negligence and misrepresentation, which was filed on behalf of a family that was refused a loan modification by the California-based company.

For that, Countrywide Home Loans, you deserve a spot in the Responsible Marketing Hall of Shame.

What do you think of Countrywide’s marketing practices?

Subscribe to this feed.

Inspiration: Eric Weaver via Twitter.
Image: Minnesota Public Radio

Here’s an amateur video of the opening taken by a customer that was there:

15,000 people attended the store’s record-setting opening, but not all of them were there for the artery-clogging Mickey D’s goodness.

On January 5th, it was revealed that McDonalds paid 1,000 of the ‘customers’ to queue up during the day for their time and for their burgers, 30 of which lined up at midnight the night before.

At a minimum, by seeding the crowd with paid fans, McDonald’s guaranteed the stores would appear to be a success. But the the buzz apparently helped and the results were phenomenal.

In an era where authenticity and transparency are expected, was McDonald’s deception responsible? Did the ends justify the means?

What say you?

Subscribe to this feed.

This week, tobacco companies were dealt a blow when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of allowing lawsuits to proceed under state law for deceptive advertising of “light” cigarettes.

Tobacco companies are now in what I call an irresponsible marketing death spiral:

The proliferation of traditional and social media have created millions of professional and private corporate watchdogs. Irresponsible marketers may be able to run, but they can’t hide.

When irresponsible marketers are caught, the U.S. legal system rewards companies, individuals and attorneys that prosecute said marketers for their actions.

Of course, controversy sells, so traditional and social media will document every step and misstep as the company attempts to respond.

Competitors gain traction as the distracted irresponsible marketing is forced to shift time, money and other resources to defending itself and/or working to mend it’s broken brand.

The company dies a slow, painful death.

Okay, not every marketing misstep will result in a class action lawsuit, boycott, movement or campaign against a company.

It’s usually more subtle than that, as customers and prospects respond with their pocketbooks—and their voices.

Truth, authenticity and transparency are no longer optional, folks.

Responsible Marketing is what the people want. One way or another they are going to get it.

Which other companies (or industries) are entering an irresponsible marketing death spiral now?

Comment below to share.

Subscribe to this feed.

While most consider the “classmates are trying to contact you” message a marketing trick, Anthony Michaels of San Diego, CA took Classmates.com at their word and paid $15 for an upgrade only to discover that—surprise!—none of his former classmates were trying to reach him.

Michaels realized he probably wasn’t alone and hired an attorney to pursue a class action lawsuit. The suit alleges intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and violation of California business and professions code.

Here’s the summons and complaint:

Classmates.com’s reputation was already poor: The Better Business Bureau and consumeraffairs.org have been logging consumer complaints against the company for years.

Classmates is innocent until proven guilty, but in the court of public opinion no trial is needed. Their ubiquitous advertising and questionable email marketing tactics have made them an easy target—and have earned them a place in the Responsible Marketing Hall of Shame.

So, what do you think if Classmates.com?

Ever been duped by them?

Can they redeem themselves?

Scroll down to share your thoughts.

A little irony: While researching this topic, countless sites that featured this story had advertising on them from—you guessed it—Classmates.com. Here’s one:

+enlarge

Subscribe to this feed.

Source (including summons and complaint): Wired.com