Posts Tagged ‘deceptive advertising’

VitaminWater or the CSPI: Who do you believe?

Friday, February 6th, 2009

vitaminwater-from-coca-cola-cspi

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

Hall of Shame: Countrywide Home Loans

Friday, January 16th, 2009

Countrywide Home Loans - Foreclosure sign

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

Responsible today. Irresponsible tomorrow?

Friday, October 17th, 2008

Responsible Marketing is relative, isn’t it?

Take a look at the following cigarette ads from When Doctors, and Even Santa, Endorsed Tobacco in the New York Times:


These ads weren’t objectionable then, even though they were deceptive. Today they’d be considered outrageous.

The fact is, Responsible Marketing is a moving target. What’s responsible today, may not be tomorrow, and vice-versa.

There are restrictions on tobacco and alcohol advertising today. What’s next: Sex aids? Pharmaceutical ads? Political advertising?

Or will the racy ads of Europe make their way to America?

I’d love to hear your take.

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

When deceptive ads aren’t so deceptive

Thursday, July 31st, 2008

I enjoy marketing that rewards you for paying attention. Ads that leave you guessing. The double entendre. Cultural, historical and sports references meant for the few instead of the many.

And I appreciate a well-executed spoof, as long as it’s done responsibly.

With that in mind, I’d like to introduce you to Derrie-Air Airlines.


+enlarge

Here are a few excerpts from “Fake Ads Don’t Fly” featured in this month’s issue of Marketing Management:

Philadelphia’s two major daily newspapers caused a stir recently by publishing print and digital ads for a fictitious airline, all of which were designed to measure the power and reach of such ads to readers across media platforms.

In early June, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News published full- and partial- page ads for Derrie-Air, a fictitious environmentally friendly airline purporting to offer fares based on passengers’ weights. According to the Inquirer, the ads appeared 21 times in sections of the Inquirer, 15 times in the Daily News, and on the Philly.com home page.

The ads contained no disclaimers, but one on the Web Page to which readers were referred in the ads said, in part, “The Derrie-Air campaign is a fictitious advertising campaign created by Philadelphia Media Holdings to test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens.”

Nevertheless, the lack of full disclosure in the ads prompted concerns and complaints from some journalism veterans who maintained that the ads were deceptive and could compromise readers’ abilities to trust the newspapers’ editorial coverage.

The effort, however, did yield intriguing results, according to the Inquirer. The ads for Derrie-Air, drew a 1.25 percent click-through rate for the online version, compared to a national click-through average of 0.05 percent.

The negative response to this campaign is a little puzzling to me for three reasons:

First, how could anyone possibly believe the airline was real? It’s named Derrie-Air!

Second, how can these ads be deceptive if they aren’t even real? Nothing was being sold, so nobody was deceived into buying anything. In fact, if I was buying media in Philadelphia, I’d appreciate the publications testing their own media.

Third, if someone was upset about the price-per-pound approach to ticketing, a trip to the website would have disabused them of the notion that this was real.

Check out the FAQ’s—you’ll be rewarded for paying attention.

Do you think this controversy is much ado about nothing, or is it valid?

Why or why not?

Comment below to weigh in (no pun intended).

. . .

Special thanks to Outsource Marketing Intern Extraordinaire Jennifer Hillman for her assistance with this post.