Advertisement is an
important medium used by the companies to make their product known to the target
audience, create demand and deliver product information. The basic idea is to
tap the unsatisfied need or the perceived benefit
of the product by the consumer to drive sales. But sometimes the companies go
way too far in claiming the benefits provided by their product or service thus
depriving the consumer of actual product information leaving ambiguity. Let’s
have a look at some of the superfluous claims made by companies in their
advertisements which landed them into trouble.
#LUCOZADE
Lucozade is an energy and sports
drink Brand introduced in the year 1927 in UK by a Newcastle chemist William Owen.
Japanese conglomerate Suntory acquired the brand from GlaxoSmithKline in 2013.
The company went into trouble when it ran a sports campaign claiming “ Lucozade
fuels you better than water” .After the ad was run Advertising standard
authority received 63 complaints including one from National Hydration Council.
A ruling was given that the claims were not acceptable and advertisement was
asked to be taken back.
Now the main issue was the use of the word “Fuel”
which ASA found to be misleading and said that campaign should have made better
reference to the fact that the main advantages of the product would only be
seen through prolonged exercise and should not have been left to the
interpretation of audience They also maintained that even if the word ‘fuel’
was appropriate rewording of the authorized claim but still the claim is no comparison
to water.
Now you may be wondering what an “authorized claim” is? Actually in
2012 in UK advertising codes , the EU register of nutrition and health claims
were included which every advertiser has to adhere while making health claims
about any food or drink. So reportedly they deviated from the approved wordings
too far.
Lesson: Don’t play with words!!
For watching the banned video check
this link:
#Red Bull- It gives you wings!!
Seriously?? At least that’s not what Benjamin Careathers
of America thinks. After consuming the Red Bull for 10 years since 2002.
Benjamin, the main complainant filed a lawsuit against company that after
consuming Red Bull for years he has neither got any wings nor any stamina or
intellect. So, the largest selling energy drink of the world faced a law suit
for not delivering what they claim in their advertisements and for inaccurate claims
regarding effectiveness of product. The company settled the lawsuit in order to
avoid cost of distraction and paid $13 million in settlement.
Sometimes customer
loyalty comes with a cost. Isn’t it?Though I wasn’t expecting to get wings when
I drank Red Bull for the first time, people take things too literally!! What
they expect a lot of girls hovering over them after applying an AXE deodorant? I think I just got a lawsuit here.
Lesson: DO NOT take advertisements too literally, they are suggestive.
For red bull's it gives you wings commercial visit :
#Naked Juice by Pepsico
Naked Juice is a popular brand of juices and smoothies in
America and is a subsidiary of Pepsico. Naked juice used “all naturals” labeling
on its juices and were advertised as “Non GMO” and “All Natural”.
But a lawsuit
was filed against the company for deceptive labeling, advertising and marketing
since some of the ingredients of the
product were either genetically –engineered or were synthetically produced and do not exist
in nature. The presence of genetically modified soy was also reported.
The company refuted the claims saying “all naturals” was
related to the use of fruits and vegetables. Although a settlement was reached and $ 9 million fund was
established as a part of settlement. People who bought naked juice in the past
6 years were entitled to a payment of $ 75 if they have proof of purchase or $
45 otherwise depending on their spending on juice.
The company continues to
label its product as “Non GMO” and decided to hire a third party to confirm its
non- GMO status, however they removed the “all naturals” labeling till clear
guidelines on what natural is.
Lesson- You DON’T make claims like that, nothing is natural today, not even fruits!!
#Nivea vital anti-age cream
Its not new for cosmetic companies to target the hidden desire
of every woman to look beautiful and flawless as long as she live. And it is
also not new for the magazines or cosmetic companies to use rebrushed image of
the celebrities as a face of the brand. But don’t you think its wrong to make
us feel bad about our body and making us chase the unrealistic appearances or
if I put it correctly digitally manipulated images.
Although many times companies like Lo’real , Maybelline and
covergirl have been slammed for using airbrushed images far from reality. In case
of Nivea it was first time a company was asked to take its print ad back when
it featured 60 plus model Cindy Joseph.
When ASA compared the real images of
the actress to the rebrushed images, the retouching was drastic and bore no
resemblance to the original women making , the edited image made her look 20
years younger.
ASA quoted advertisement as misleading as such results are
not possible to achieve by anti -ageing cream. The actress boasted “what you
see is what you get”. That’s ironic!!
Lesson: Don’t distort the reality too much as people will eventually know. If you are smart, they are smarter!!
#Groupon
In a classic case of bait and switch advertising the San Francisco
based travel tour company accused the daily discount provider Groupon of buying
tour related keywords from Google Adwords while not even providing any coupons
for that particular tourist destination , thus increasing the cost of keywords
for their company and affecting their ranking on SERP.
Lesson: Good thought! But this is not how you do business.
These are just a few companies who had to pay prices because
of the false claims they made in their advertisements, there are many more.
Please share any company or brand which you know that suffered because of
deceptive advertising.
