Truth in packaging: Pirate's Booty

So I guess their reasoning for "All New" will be ... well, it's not really a new design or a new kind of product. What we really mean is we didn't put any of those old already eaten potato chips in there. They're "All New."

One has to wonder what "pirate's booty" refers to...

This just made me laugh, I'd never thought of the Snapple tag like that. Marketing is funny.

And, as I believe PT Barnum said; "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public", hence the ongoing success of a product like "Pirate Booty"...which I be eatin' from time to time, argh.. Woe is me.

I'm a creative director/art director, and I ultimately stopped working in PR/Marketing because of this type of *strategy*. I don't remember it ever seeming harmless or funny to me, and I started losing sleep at night because it looked to me like an industry full of clever people using their power for not-good. Some people call it spin, but that is a gross justification of the practice of willfully misleading those less inclined to make good choices for themselves (less educated, less worldly, less intelligent, etc.). I decided I wanted to stop aiding and abetting what I consider to be bad practice, at least karma-wise.

I would just like to get a hamburger (or other food) that actually looks like the photo in the advertisement!!!

Wouldn't that be great marketing?!

"As customers increasingly share their experiences with each other online, and discuss the facts behind company claims, it may not pay to deceive customers, even a little bit..."

Considering I'll never buy another bag after reading this post and the NY Times article I'd say you're right.

This reminds me of one of the most famous contract law cases of all time.

In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893 -- yes more than 100 years ago] the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised anyone who took medication using their smoke ball product [yes actual smoke!] as directed would not contract influenza, guaranteed by a reward of £100.

Mrs. Carlill used the product as directed, but still caught influenza and sought the guarantee. The company rebuked the claim and said that it was not an offer.

Their rational was that Mrs. Carlill had not notified them of the acceptance of any offer.

They also claimed in their defence mere “puffery,” or exagerrated claims for promotional purposes. An offer, they claimed, cannot be made with the entire world. The company lost its case by the way.

Someone has preserved the advertising on this website: http://www.carbolicsmokeball.co.uk/

In the last 115 years I believe what has changed is that consumers are less gullible and have more ways to speak out about commercial puffery (citation: this blog). It still doesn't make it right -- especially when done on purpose to trick or decive.

--O

I walked into a stereo store that advertised "all cassette decks on sale." The one I wanted showed only a normal price, so I asked the sales guy why it wasn't on sale when they claimed all units were. His answer: "It's on sale for the regular price." Guess who never returned to that store.

Packs of Nat Sherman's tobacco products say "100% ADDITIVE-FREE NATURAL TOBACCO". When someone sees this for the first time, the typical first reaction is: "Wow! Non-addiCtive tobacco! Finally!" Every person I know (including myself) fell for it.

Coincidence? I don't think so...

I think it's a good example of advertising that is technically 100% correct but still misleading.

P.S. Putting aside the issue of addictiveness, though, I must note that the quality and taste of Nat Sherman's cigarettes ARE very good, IMHO...

P.P.S. Personally, I think that misleading ads are designed mainly for one purpose: to provoke impulse purchases. I believe that customers who purchase in this manner always were (and always will be) the main victims of such approach to marketing. Internet won't change a thing for those customers. Internet is of a great new tool only for those who like to compare and research products BEFORE buying them; I think customers of this kind probably did not fall for "misadvertizing" too often even in pre-Internet era...

P.P.P.S. I believe that real damage from misadvertising cannot be large in the big picture. If a product is inexpensive and does not cause any other substantial harm to a buyer - who cares? If the buyer really likes it, he/she will buy it again and again even if mis-advertising gets unveiled. And vice versa. Now, if a product is expensive or is otherwise critical to a buyer's health or well-being... well, how many customers would commit impulse buying of products of this kind?

"Promise something, deliver less, and leave the customer happy: that's a powerful way to raise margins."

Reminds me of the genius that is (or was a while back) "frequent use shampoo" - which was just watered down shampoo, and you use it more often!

Wait, what happened to a reasonable consumer and some common sense? I think Pirate's Booty controversy is hilarious - who REALLY thought that it was good for them? Is it the same person who thought their coffee wouldn't be hot at McD's? All the nutritional information is right there on the package - your fault for not reading.

You mean Pirate Booty ISN'T good for you? Arrrrrrgh. (Get it? Arrrrrrgh? Like a pirate? Nevermind.)

Personal responsibility in the case of products like Pirate's Booty is nearly absent. Healthful food is fresh, seasonal, and prepared with actual vegetables, fruits, meats and grains. Almost all "foods" in a bag or box [especially something that resembles a cheese puff] is going to have nearly zero nutritional value. That's just logic based on existing information.

I have very mixed feelings about this - I love Pirate's Booty, and while I realize it's just more corn-based snackfood with barely a fraction of a gram of dried vegetables, it's still better for you than Doritos or something like that... beyond the fat issue that this article focuses on, they've still got fewer chemicals than Doritos/Tostidos/Cheetos/deep-fried toes, and there are customers like me who DO feel better about that. (read the ingredient lists of all of these products...)

So while it sounds like this guy is purporting a sham, what if his mission is noble, and he really does believe that he's got at least a better alternative to snacking on Doritos? I agree that "good for you" may be a little far fetched, but there are customers, like me, who are more or less won over by better ingredients?

I don't mean to be an apologist for this guy but just because this reporter is hung up on the fat issue doesn't mean that this guy is somehow duping his customers...

@Yarik -

I doubt many people would be confused.
Additive and Addictive are two entirely different things.

Most packaging does lie though -
Foods these days come with Preservatives, coloring, or additives.
You'll often see "healthy" crap marketed as being without 1 or 2 of those three ingredients.

My other pet peeve is 100% Natural Orange Juice.

When I grew up, we used to have fresh orange juice in the store, freshly squeezed. These days its literally impossible to find. Almost all of the "100% orange juice" labelled products contain gems like - Added Sugar, made from Orange Pulp, Apple Juice concentrate and water.

Sigh...

Lets not even get onto the FDA being paid^H lobbied to reclassify chocolate by the big manufacturers...

I feel that we would be remiss to go without noting that Pirate's Booty much better-for-you brother product, Veggie-Bootie, was recently recalled on the grounds that the kale powder (Chinese grown) which they were using was full of *possible* salmonella. Hmmmmm... Chinese kale powder (toxic at that) put on food sold to liberals in health food stores? Talk about stupid marketing! No one but liberals would eat puffs coated in dried vegetables. A little consistency and understanding of their customer base would be in line. I will never ever buy that product again.