Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has released the results of experimental studies examining the relationship between TV food advertising and consumption. Titled “Priming Effects of Television Food Advertising on Eating Behavior,” the article appears in the July edition of Health Psychology and concludes that “food advertising on television increases automatic snacking on available foods in children and adults.” Authors Jennifer Harris, John Bargh and Kelly Brownell observed elementary-school-aged children who received a snack while watching programs that featured either food advertising or advertising for other products. The authors also followed adults exposed to (i) “food advertising that promoted snacking and/or fun product benefits”; (ii) “food advertising that promoted nutrition benefits” or (iii) “no food advertising.” The adults then “tasted and evaluated a range of healthy to unhealthy snack foods.” According to the article, the children “consumed 45 percent more when exposed to food advertising,” while adults…
Tag Archives advertising
“Industry critics compare the intent of fast-food companies to that of cigarette makers, who first came under attack for marketing to children decades ago,” writes BusinessWeek’s Douglas MacMillan in this article detailing the efforts of consumer advocacy groups to outlaw food advertising to children. According to MacMillan, “public criticism and mountains of data linking obesity, diabetes and other health problems to the regular consumption of fast food has [sic] caused the industry to rethink its entrenched practice of marketing to kids.” His overview cites the creation of the Children’s Food & Beverage Initiative under the auspices of the Council for Better Business Bureaus (CBBB), which requires signatories to limit their advertising to children and promote food considered healthy by the Food and Drug Administration. This initiative, however, has apparently failed to deter groups like Corporate Accountability International, which has taken up the banner against fast-food companies. “Both the tobacco and fast-food industries…
While the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) considers comments submitted by stakeholders to its proposed advertising endorsement guideline amendments, industry and blogging interests have reportedly expressed concerns about their ambiguity and suggested that voluntary ethical standards would best police the practice of “social media marketing.” The FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, last updated in 1980, if applied to bloggers who are paid to endorse products or services, would require bloggers to substantiate their product performance claims without specifying the proof needed to satisfy the claim. The amended guidance would also require disclosure of compensation arrangements, ranging from product coupons and cash payments to free products or services and pay-per-click links to sites that sell the product. According to a news source, if the guideline amendments are adopted later in 2009, violators could face FTC stop orders, restitution to customers or civil penalties. See The Associated Press, June…
University of Minnesota Law School Associate Professor William McGeveran discusses the problems posed by Internet marketing that collects and disseminates information about individual purchases as a form of product endorsement among the purchaser’s friends and acquaintances. The author describes how such marketing has already occurred on social networking platforms and the backlash it created. The article explains how current legal paradigms, such as privacy, trademark and consumer protection law, may not provide the protection needed for invasion of privacy by “social marketing” and posits that a common theme to the objections to this type of Web 2.0 marketing is the issue of genuine user consent. McGeveran recommends regulatory best practices to rein in any excesses and theorizes that giving a person control over whether information about her purchase can be used to market a product would go a long way toward resolving some of the concerns that have been raised.
A federal court in California has dismissed a putative class action alleging that the maker of Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries® cereal misrepresented its product in violation of the state’s Business & Professions Code. Sugawara v. Pepsico, Inc., No. 08-01335 (E.D. Cal., decided May 21, 2009). Plaintiff alleged that the colorful “Crunchberries” depicted on the cereal box, combined with the use of the word “berry” in the product name, convey the message that the product contains fruit. She claimed that she purchased the product for some four years because she had been misled by defendant’s advertising and misrepresentations, never discerning that the product has no berries of any kind and that the only fruit content is “strawberry fruit concentrate, twelfth in order on the ingredient list.” According to the court, “while the challenged packaging contains the word ‘berries’ it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term ‘crunch.’ This Court…
General Mills, Inc. has reportedly enlisted hundreds of bloggers to receive and review products as part of its MyBlogSpark™ campaign, which sends free samples, coupons and other promotional materials to members in exchange for their feedback. The blog network has apparently registered approximately 900 writers–of whom more than 80 percent are mothers–to expand marketing distribution to an audience purportedly exceeding 8 million readers. One recent set of blog reviews garnered approximately 5 million “total impressions” and 8,000 comments, according to General Mills, which does not purchase ad space on the web pages. The blogosphere’s growing influence, however, has prompted the Federal Trade Commission to propose regulations that would require bloggers to reveal any affiliations with the product under review. MyBlogSpark has thus encouraged participants to divulge their relationship to General Mills, but also asked bloggers to submit any negative reviews to the program before posting them on the Internet. “We…
The named plaintiff who brought a putative class action for false advertising of healthy menu items against a company that operates chain restaurants across the United States has reportedly agreed to dismiss with prejudice the claims she filed in a federal court in Texas. Paskett v. Brinker Int’l Inc., No. 08-942 (N.D. Tex., dismissed April 20, 2009). The plaintiff alleged that the healthy menu items at Chili’s Grill & Bar, Romano’s Macaroni Grill and On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina restaurants actually contained higher levels of fat, calories and total carbohydrates than listed on the menus. The named plaintiff has filed similar claims in California against Applebee’s parent company, alleging that she dined at these restaurants because they offered a Weight Watchers menu, which was also purportedly advertised and marketed inaccurately. See LexisNexis® Mealey’s™ Litigation Report, Food Liability, May 2009.
A federal court in Illinois, presiding over consolidated multidistrict litigation claims against McDonald’s Corp. for allegedly advertising its French fries as gluten-, wheat- and dairy-free while actually using small amounts of hydrolyzed wheat bran and casein in them, has denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig., MDL No. 1784 (N.D. Ill., decided May 6, 2009. The court determined that the class definition was indefinite and overbroad, the proposed class would be unmanageable, and individual issues would predominate over common ones. The plaintiffs, who alleged violations of all 50 states’ and the District of Columbia’s consumer fraud and/or deceptive trade practices acts, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment, sought to certify a nationwide class of all persons “who purchased Potato Products from McDonald’s restaurants on or after February 27, 2002 through February 7, 2006 and who at the time of purchase had been medically diagnosed with…
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that Kellogg Co. agreed to settle false-advertising charges involving Frosted Mini-Wheats® advertisements that claimed the product was “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20 percent.” According to FTC, the clinical study on which the ads were based showed that “only about half the children who ate Frosted Mini-Wheats for breakfast showed any improvement in attentiveness, and only about one in nine improved by 20 percent or more.” Under the consent order, Kellogg agrees to pull its offending ads and not to express or imply that its cereal improves attentiveness “unless, at the time [the claim] is made, the representation is true and non-misleading.” The company also agreed not to make any representation “about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of such product for cognitive function, cognitive processes, or cognitive health, unless the representation . . . relies upon competent and reliable scientific…
According to the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (BBB), Wrigley should modify or discontinue some of the claims it makes for its Eclipse® brand chewing gum. Following a challenge by Cadbury Adams USA, which makes competing products, the BBB’s advertising division examined Wrigley claims that its gum “kills germs and cures bad breath.” The division determined that such claims “convey the message that Eclipse with MBE [magnolia bark extract] is different from other gums based on its germ killing capabilities which is attributable to the addition of MBE.” Because scientific studies did not provide the support necessary to substantiate the claims due to purported methodological flaws, the division “recommended that the print advertising and packaging claims be discontinued or modified to indicate that there is emerging evidence as to MBE’s germ killing capability without expressly or by implication communicating that there is credible scientific evidence…
