Will new nutrition labels lead to healthier consumers?

The FDA is set to impose major changes to nutrition labels on food packages for the first time in over 20 years. The organization sites the need to bring labels up to speed with the contemporary American diet as a catalyst for the change. New labels are meant to be easier to understand and will be based on expanded portion sizes. Added sugars are in the center of the change with new labels making the distinction between natural and manufactured sugar additives. Many in the FDA and other nutritionists explain that the expensive change is necessary in the fight against obesity in the US. Even First Lady Michelle Obama praised the initiative and promoted the changes at the anniversary celebration for her “Let’s Move” campaign aimed at reducing obesity.

Consumers have a right to know what they are putting into their body. However, some new label requirements could force food and beverage companies to put nutritional information both good and bad on the front of their packaging. Could this potentially impact the branding and packaging of these products? What about products high in added sugar? Does this change damage their brand? What impact will these changes have on the way consumers view food and beverage products? 

Part of a nutritious breakfast?

A few years ago I posted about Nutella’s deceptive ads claiming the spread was a healthy addition to a nutritious breakfast. After a class action settlement, Ferrero, the makers of Nutella, agreed to change their messaging in advertisements, on the label and on their website. However, it seems that Nutella is still trying to promote a healthy image for the brand. A food blogger has examined what is in Nutella and has discovered that the spread is far from healthy....but Nutella's website and other brand messaging still implies that it is healthy. Did Nutella change their advertising message enough? Should there be a warning on the label saying that it contains a high amount of sugar? How do you feel about marketing foods that are known to be unhealthy? Do you think there should be more or less regulation?

Crazy Prices, Crazy Consumers, Just Plain Craziness

By now you've all heard that Missoni released a "Missoni for Target" line on Tuesday, Sept. 13th.  It caused madness on the Target website, crashing it numerous times throughout the day, as well as madness within and outside the stores (nearing the length of lines outside an Apple store that precede an iPhone release). 

All of this is because this is a high end designer who is "bringing the high end to the masses." They created a 400-piece line exclusively for Target.  So, they're making cheaper versions of the brand and selling the Target version of the $500 shirt for $100. 

Of course all of those consumers were not buying the products for themselves, but rather because they want to make a tidy profit when they turn around and sell it for five times as much as they paid.  By Thursday there were over 40,000 Missoni products available on eBay and a lot more available on Craigslist. 

Is this crazy consumer behavior?  Would you buy the Missoni stuff from ebay and Craigslist at such insanely marked up prices?  Or do you know friends who would do it?

Thoughts please!

Pay to not Play?

This is old news by now (two weeks old), but it is still worth commenting on.  Often, celebrities are paid to wear certain clothes or to endorse certain brands. The reason this is done is in hopes of increasing the value of the brand through positive association.  Not nearly as often (I'm not aware of any other cases, but there could be one/some) is a "celebrity" paid to NOT wear a certain brand for fear that wearing it will decrease the value of the brand.  Such is the case with Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino from Jersey Shore. 

Abercrombie and Fitch would very much like all of the characters on Jersey Shore to find another brand to wear.  What are your thoughts on this?

The press release:



"We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image.  We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans. We have therefore offered a substantial payment to Michael 'The Situation' Sorrentino and the producers of MTV's The Jersey Shore to have the character wear an alternate brand.  We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response."