A California court recently awarded a San Diego woman a $3 million judgement because she interpreted Nutella advertising to be making claims that Nutella was healthy. The most surprising thing about this verdict is how unremarkable it has become.
I am an earnest proponent of honesty and good faith in marketing communications anyway. It is the only way you can build and sustain that relationship with the customer that is essential to a long term profitable relationship. It seems, however, our judicial system has given marketers another reason to keep to the straight and narrow in their advertising claims.
Here is the transcript of one of the ads that came into question:
"[MOM]: As a mom, I’m a great believer in Nutella, a delicious hazelnut spread that I use to get my kids to eat healthy foods. I spread a little on all kinds of healthy things, like multi-grain toast. Every jar has wholesome, quality ingredients, like hazelnuts, skim milk, and a hint of delicious cocoa. And Nutella has no artificial colors or preservatives. It’s quick, it’s easy, and at breakfast I can use all the help I can get.
[VOICEOVER]: Nutella—breakfast never tasted this good."
Obviously, they were trying to broaden their market and hoped to be thought of as a breakfast alternative in question. I honestly don't see egregious overreach here. Nevertheless, I do think the verdict provides an opportunity for all marketers to revisit the marketing and advertising claims and make sure they aren't spreading it on a little too thick.
No comments:
Post a Comment