In the 1920s Guinness launched an advertising campaign with the slogan “Guinness is Good for You!” after market research revealed that many people felt good after they had drunk their pint.
However, a few decades ago Guinness’s well-loved campaign was banned on the grounds that it was misleading. The iconic stout may offer health benefits, such as helping to thin blood, but, like any alcoholic drink, can't be generalised as “good for you”.
In January 2011 Coca Cola found themselves in a similar situation when the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned them from describing Vitaminwater as “nutritious”, with each bottle containing a whopping 23g of sugar. The ASA felt that describing this sugary drink as “nutritious” was misleading and stated:
“...we considered that they [the consumers] would not expect a 'nutritious' drink to have the equivalent of four or five teaspoons of added sugar. Because Vitaminwater contained about a quarter of a consumer’s GDA for sugar as well as the added vitamins, we considered that the description of Vitaminwater as 'nutritious' was misleading.”
Is this slight glossing over or accentuating of the truth wrong? Definitely a moot point
Murky
Presumably, given the amount of press coverage the story received, Vitaminwater’s sales will be hit hard, with the possibility that Coca Cola’s core product sales will also be affected. So why launch an advertising campaign based on a rather murky version of the truth in the first place?
Well firstly, Coca Cola does not believe its campaign is misleading given that the drink contains 100% of an adult’s recommended daily of Vitamin C as well as other core nutrients. Setting this aside and imagining that they did factor in all that sugar, why paint this super-nutritious picture?
The Collins dictionary defines advertising as “to present or praise (goods or a service) to the public, in order to encourage sales”. Thus, Coca Cola were presenting Vitaminwater to us, the health-conscious public, in such a way that we would be encouraged to buy it – and it worked.
But is this slight glossing over or accentuating of the truth wrong? Definitely a moot point.
Everyone is at it in the food and drink industry - for example, even bog standard tap water gives us 'volcanicity', according to Volvic! Although these clever chaps have conjured a brand-new word, there is little for the ASA to complain about.
With ASA rulings of this nature occurring almost on a weekly basis we have to ask whether advertisers are getting more free and easy with the truth, whether consumers are not taking responsibility for their own actions, or perhaps a little of both?
I don’t think I’ve made my mind up just yet but I can tell you that I always look twice when confronted with 'wholegrain goodness', 'friendly bacteria' and drinks which profess to let me 'do more'.
Where do you stand? Does the ASA need to tighten the reins on this type of advertising or do consumers just need to stop and read the label?
