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?
Showing posts with label deception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deception. Show all posts
Monday, February 10, 2014
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?
Monday, November 4, 2013
Online Reviews - True or False?
In today’s digital world, it is common for companies to be represented online. Social media and the like open the forum to consumers to start a conversation about businesses and products. Most of the time these discussion forums act as a consumer’s first impression on a company they may not be familiar with….but how much of this information is true?
A recent article discusses the increasing trend of companies writing or buying fake reviews to improve their online presence. Many popular sites such as Yelp have started policing such activities with algorithms aimed at targeting and removing fake reviews. As marketers we know how much misrepresentation can damage a product’s reputation…so why do it? Why is it attractive to companies to publish fake reviews? What are the risks companies take when publishing fake reviews? What are the potential impacts on the customer? Should the FTC ramp up regulation on online forums? Comment with your opinion.
A recent article discusses the increasing trend of companies writing or buying fake reviews to improve their online presence. Many popular sites such as Yelp have started policing such activities with algorithms aimed at targeting and removing fake reviews. As marketers we know how much misrepresentation can damage a product’s reputation…so why do it? Why is it attractive to companies to publish fake reviews? What are the risks companies take when publishing fake reviews? What are the potential impacts on the customer? Should the FTC ramp up regulation on online forums? Comment with your opinion.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Will eating McDonald's make me able to dunk like LeBron James?
Athletes, being the epitome of health and fitness, create mixed messages when it comes to endorsing junk food. An article about athlete endorsements asks if athletes really eat the junk food they endorse. LeBron James and Serena Williams testify that they stick to a strict diet of healthy foods. They make no mention of eating the junk food they endorse. If they don’t eat it, why do they endorse it?
And this is not a new phenomenon. Athletes like Babe Ruth endorsed tobacco products back in the day….except at that time they probably used the products too....but does that make it right? Do you think there is a difference between athletes and other celebrities endorsing junk food? Should athletes endorse foods known to be bad for you especially when they don’t use the product themselves? What impact does this have on consumers? Are consumers being tricked? Weigh in on this issue in the comments.
And this is not a new phenomenon. Athletes like Babe Ruth endorsed tobacco products back in the day….except at that time they probably used the products too....but does that make it right? Do you think there is a difference between athletes and other celebrities endorsing junk food? Should athletes endorse foods known to be bad for you especially when they don’t use the product themselves? What impact does this have on consumers? Are consumers being tricked? Weigh in on this issue in the comments.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Return Whatever, Whenever?
Should a customer be able to return any item that he or she has purchased? And should this "right" be a "forever" right? This is a question posed in an article about LL Bean. The store famously allows returns from customers at any point....for any reason. In their words, they have " an astonishingly lenient return policy."
Take a moment and read the linked article and then give your input as to the impact (on the business) of this type of policy. Does it benefit the company more than it harms the company? Is it only appropriate for certain types of companies (consumer packaged goods? automobile companies? clothing companies? grocery stores?)? What do you see as the upside for the company that extends this benefit to customers? What are potential downsides? How do you weigh them against each other?
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
If 300 is Good, 1000 Must be Better. Right?
We discussed this in the first week of class....thread count on sheets. If you have bought sheets lately (or, honestly, at any point in your life) you probably have come across a characteristic of sheets that is known as "thread count." It refers to the number of threads per square inch of fabric. And higher is better....supposedly. Traditionally speaking, higher thread counts meant a more luxurious feel to the sheets.
According to a new study by Consumer Reports, there is not necessarily a link between high thread counts and more luxurious feel.
"Thread count is the number of vertical and horizontal threads per square inch. Not long ago, sheets typically had thread counts of 120 with 60 horizontal and 60 vertical threads. In the 1960’s, a sheet with a 180 thread count was considered a luxury. “Now you see 1,000 thread count sheets but you just can’t get that many threads on a loom,” says Pat Slaven, a textile expert at Consumer Reports.
To get that higher number, manufacturers use thinner strands of fabric twisted together as if they were one. Then they double, triple or even quadruple the thread count to make the number more attractive to the consumer. “It ups the count but doesn’t give you a better sheet,” says Slaven. “The sweet spot is 400.”"
The problem is that consumers are generally willing to pay more for higher thread counts...believing that these will be softer, more luxurious and more durable. And, if they were all of those things...perhaps they would be worth more money. But they aren't.
Also at issue is going by how sheets "feel" in the store. If you zip open the package of sheets and feel the sheets and they are soft, almost slippery to the touch....don't be fooled. Manufacturers apply "hand enhancers, silicone softeners" that wash out the first time that you do laundry.
Thoughts?
According to a new study by Consumer Reports, there is not necessarily a link between high thread counts and more luxurious feel.
"Thread count is the number of vertical and horizontal threads per square inch. Not long ago, sheets typically had thread counts of 120 with 60 horizontal and 60 vertical threads. In the 1960’s, a sheet with a 180 thread count was considered a luxury. “Now you see 1,000 thread count sheets but you just can’t get that many threads on a loom,” says Pat Slaven, a textile expert at Consumer Reports.
To get that higher number, manufacturers use thinner strands of fabric twisted together as if they were one. Then they double, triple or even quadruple the thread count to make the number more attractive to the consumer. “It ups the count but doesn’t give you a better sheet,” says Slaven. “The sweet spot is 400.”"
The problem is that consumers are generally willing to pay more for higher thread counts...believing that these will be softer, more luxurious and more durable. And, if they were all of those things...perhaps they would be worth more money. But they aren't.
Also at issue is going by how sheets "feel" in the store. If you zip open the package of sheets and feel the sheets and they are soft, almost slippery to the touch....don't be fooled. Manufacturers apply "hand enhancers, silicone softeners" that wash out the first time that you do laundry.
Thoughts?
Wear and Return? Not so fast....
Have you ever bought a piece of clothing only to get it home and find out that it *appears* to have been worn by someone already? You swear that you just paid retail price for it...in a retail store...thinking that you were walking home with a brand new item. And yet.....ick. It HAS been worn already.
It is a crime called "wardrobing" and Bloomingdale's is making an attempt to stop it from happening to you in the future.
It is more likely to happen with high price items like prom dresses and formal wear, but it also happens with lower priced clothing. People "buy" the clothing, wear it for whatever function they have coming up and then, once the "dinner with the new parents-in-law" is over....they return the item to the store and get their money back. ....And then you or I buy it, not knowing that it has already been worn (beyond the dressing room).
It is illegal. It is return fraud and it costs the industry an enormous amount of money each year ($8.8 billion. That is billion with a B in 2012).
Bloomingdale's new way to combat this retail crime is to attach a big black tag in a very obvious place on the clothing (in the front, near the hem, for example) which, once removed, makes the clothing ineligible to be returned.
Brilliant? Or not? What are your thoughts on this new practice of reinforcing the return policy?
It is a crime called "wardrobing" and Bloomingdale's is making an attempt to stop it from happening to you in the future.
It is more likely to happen with high price items like prom dresses and formal wear, but it also happens with lower priced clothing. People "buy" the clothing, wear it for whatever function they have coming up and then, once the "dinner with the new parents-in-law" is over....they return the item to the store and get their money back. ....And then you or I buy it, not knowing that it has already been worn (beyond the dressing room).
It is illegal. It is return fraud and it costs the industry an enormous amount of money each year ($8.8 billion. That is billion with a B in 2012).
Bloomingdale's new way to combat this retail crime is to attach a big black tag in a very obvious place on the clothing (in the front, near the hem, for example) which, once removed, makes the clothing ineligible to be returned.
Brilliant? Or not? What are your thoughts on this new practice of reinforcing the return policy?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
7 Rip-offs and 20 Worst Drinks
Imelda sent me this great article on ways that consumers get ripped-off in the supermarket. Have you fallen for any of them? I have a friend who swears by 5-hour energy drinks. Now I know that I can just offer her a cup of coffee and save her a lot of money.
I thought you might also find this interesting - the 20 worst drinks in America. Have you had any of them? Did you realize what you were consuming (in grams of sugar, etc.)?
1 Rockstar Energy drink = the sugar in 6 Krispy Kreme donuts. Wow.
Don't even think about having a Dairy Queen Moolatte.
I thought you might also find this interesting - the 20 worst drinks in America. Have you had any of them? Did you realize what you were consuming (in grams of sugar, etc.)?
1 Rockstar Energy drink = the sugar in 6 Krispy Kreme donuts. Wow.
Don't even think about having a Dairy Queen Moolatte.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Deceptive?
A local (San Diego) mom has sued Nutella for deceptive advertising.
The California mom alleges in her legal complaint that she fed her 4-year-old daughter Nutella after seeing ads that represented the spread as "nutritious" or a "healthy breakfast."
Nutella lists nutritional information on their website. They don't, though, list the ingredients. If you look at the back of a jar, the first ingredient listed is sugar. The second ingredient is vegetable oil.
This isn't the first suit that Nutella has faced. In the UK in 2008 they were sued when the petitioners said Ferrero's advertisements portrayed Nutella as a healthy part of a balanced breakfast. U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority said, "We considered that the ad misleadingly implied the spread made a more significant nutritional contribution to a balanced breakfast than was the case." The Nutella ad claiming that it was good for children's breakfast was banned in the UK in 2008..
Thoughts?
The California mom alleges in her legal complaint that she fed her 4-year-old daughter Nutella after seeing ads that represented the spread as "nutritious" or a "healthy breakfast."
Nutella lists nutritional information on their website. They don't, though, list the ingredients. If you look at the back of a jar, the first ingredient listed is sugar. The second ingredient is vegetable oil.
This isn't the first suit that Nutella has faced. In the UK in 2008 they were sued when the petitioners said Ferrero's advertisements portrayed Nutella as a healthy part of a balanced breakfast. U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority said, "We considered that the ad misleadingly implied the spread made a more significant nutritional contribution to a balanced breakfast than was the case." The Nutella ad claiming that it was good for children's breakfast was banned in the UK in 2008..
Thoughts?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Continuing the Food Theme
Since we're on the theme of food....there were two interesting pieces in the news today.
How many of you have enjoyed a blueberry bagel? Blueberry waffle? Blueberry cereal? Blueberry muffin? Would you be disappointed to learn that your blueberries were actually just bits made of " sugar, corn cereal, modified food starch, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, artificial flavor, cellulose gum, salt and artificial colors like Blue #2, Red #40, Green #3 and Blue #1?"
Truth - not a bit of blueberry in sight. Sorry folks. This might not be a problem were these products not advertised with photos of plump ripe blueberries on the front of the package.
**********************************************************************************
Do any of you indulge in Taco Bell? Turns out the seasoned beef isn't so much beef as it is other stuff. 64% other stuff to be exact. Have faith, 36% of the seasoned beef is actually beef.
Is this news worthy of a lawsuit?
How many of you have enjoyed a blueberry bagel? Blueberry waffle? Blueberry cereal? Blueberry muffin? Would you be disappointed to learn that your blueberries were actually just bits made of " sugar, corn cereal, modified food starch, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, artificial flavor, cellulose gum, salt and artificial colors like Blue #2, Red #40, Green #3 and Blue #1?"
Truth - not a bit of blueberry in sight. Sorry folks. This might not be a problem were these products not advertised with photos of plump ripe blueberries on the front of the package.
**********************************************************************************
Do any of you indulge in Taco Bell? Turns out the seasoned beef isn't so much beef as it is other stuff. 64% other stuff to be exact. Have faith, 36% of the seasoned beef is actually beef.
Is this news worthy of a lawsuit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)