All projects: Gel, Good Todo, Games, Uncle Mark, Bit Literacy
Pomegranates and reality
The popular pomegranate drink called POM is in the news today, having been named in a complaint by the FTC. As stated in the FTC's press release, POM advertisements have included the following language:
Super health powers ... Proven to fight for cardiovascular, prostate and erectile health."
New research offers further proof of the heart-healthy benefits of POM Wonderful juice. 30% decrease in arterial plaque ... 17% improved blood flow ... promotes healthy blood vessels...
The New Yorker ran a long profile of Lynda Resnick, the marketer behind the POM brand, a couple of years ago. Veteran Good Experience readers will remember that I drew that into a column called Pomegranates and empathy. She certainly seems to know - from listening to customers - what people want to hear. Whether she actually delivers on her product's attractive promises ... well, that's a different issue. (And, I'd argue, the more important issue.)
Ever the aggressive marketer, Resnick has reportedly filed a countersuit against the FTC, claiming a violation to her First Amendment right to free speech.
What would you prefer to spend your own professional energies on - making attractive promises, or delivering something good? Of course you want to do both. But in the end, what's more important to you: making the promise, or actually delivering the good(s)?
Sounds obvious, but it's probably not either/or - but there's definitely some hierarchy there. You work on delivering something good, then work on making attractive promises to get the word out and convince people to buy.
POM Wonderful fundamentally disagrees with the FTC and believes that the commission’s allegations against POM are completely unwarranted. Pomegranates are food – highly nutritious produce, designed by nature itself. Because POM products may in fact offer the promise of better health, we believe it is important to share the research results as they become available.
Read POM’s statement in response to the FTC’s complaint here: http://www.pomwonderful.com/about/september-27-2010
(Now that's marketing, posting the press release to blogs mentioning the complaint!)
Still, I have to wonder if this is the strongest defense to mount: "Pomegranates are food"? I don't think that was under dispute. And stating that the products "may in fact" offer a health benefit doesn't say much, when the FTC has been very specific about the aggressive health claims made by POM Wonderful. Not sure what this release is offering in response.
Mark, it's "natural."
Also, 9/10 doctors from the State of California recommend that it cures cancer.
:-)
I have seen both (and experienced both) in the past - promising and delivering. I err on the side of insuring the product is quality and does what we say it does. That is so much more critical than the packaging. That said - if you can hit it out of the park on an innovation and product certainly both are in play. I like to prove the product with real world use first before starting to put forth evangelical pledges to prospects.
But Mark, they *fundamentally disagree* with the FTC and *believe* something else. Isn't that enough??
Good point, Ben :)
So... Whatever happened to under-promising and over-delivering?
Never mind the fine print: I can't imagine delivering anything less than my best effort and my client's expectation. I would feel like a snake-oil huckster if my product didn't match my marketing promise.
As a copywriter for more than 10 years, and someone who is completely measured on his ability to sell product, it may surprise you to know that I'm the FIRST person who questions when marketers want to make absurd and untrue claims. I consider myself the last line of defense for the customer, and the front line of defense for the brand.
As any smart, ethical marketer will tell you, a brand is a promise. It starts with your product. There are countless ways to ethically enhance an inferior product through marketing. Lying to customers will get you the same thing lying to your friends will: An upset person who will go out of their way to say bad things about you.
Oh, and assuming the FTC is correct, I can't decide what's worse: her ethics, or her abuse of the constitution.
POM PR forgot that Greek mythology proves pomegranates are the road to Hades! Or was that good intentions....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone#Abduction_myth
I agree...it's better to spend energy on product improvement. Like attracts like.
Once I worked in a dates packing factory.
The factory had a new product - dates snack.
On the package was the slogan "less calories - more energy".
We tried to tell management that this is lying to the customers but they didn't listen.
Finally, the Israeli commerce ministry ordered to stop selling the product in this package.
The product failed.
According to the FTC, Lynda and Stewart Resnick, owners of POM Wonderful, are in violation of federal law because their advertising makes "false and unsubstantiated claims" about the health benefits of pomegranates. But much scientific research shows that pomegranates are packed with numerous health-promoting compounds and nutrients.
The FTC and FDA are both rogue corpo-agencies hellbent on keeping Americans nutritionally illiterate. They will not let any food producers cite *peer-reviewed scientific studies* (even ones funded by our gov't!) proving that products such as cherries, walnuts or pomegranates have health benefits, because that would magically turn those foods into DRUGS.
Anyone who follows health advice from these tools of industry should just enjoy a jug of high fructose corn syrup with their GMO corn snacks!
More: http://www.naturalnews.com/029698_censorship_FDA.html
Uh, obviously delivery of the actual promise is more important than making it. I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind the opposite gave rise to the practice of "feeding people crap and telling them it's ice cream." Advertisers, first of all, MUST keep their brand promise. It's more profitable in the long term, too.