Here's a case study on deceitful marketing that I cut out of my local newspaper.
The ad screams,
"Up-front Calorie Labeling. No need to read between the lines"and goes on to explain,
"the easier it is to find the calories, the easier it is to make the choices that help you and your family achieve a sensible, balanced diet"Now putting aside the fact that Coca Cola has no place in a sensible balanced diet let's go back to how easy it is to find the calories.
Looking at this helpful new label it would appear that the bottle of Coca Cola has 110 calories. No need to read between the lines.
What it doesn't mention is that while there might not be a need to read between the lines, there's a need to read below the lines and then follow that up with some long division and multiplication.
If you look just below the large fonted 110 you might notice the small fonted calories/250ml qualifier.
The bottle is 591mL.
591mL/250mL * 110 calories = 260 calories.
Coca Cola folks, when you read this - 260 calories in big type on a 591mL bottle would be up-front labeling. 110 calories in big type on a 591mL bottle with small print below stating /250mL? That's just slimy marketing.
[UPDATE May 8th, 2010: Saw some cans at the store. They were labeled correctly with total calories for the whole container and not just 250mL. Looks like their deceit is limited to their national campaign launching the program]
[Hat tip to Twitter's @kidactivecanada]
Posts
Well they opened themselves up for criticism on that one! Unfortunately some people will be duped as they don't read the fine print.
ReplyDeleteThat ad is the poster child for chutzpah.
ReplyDeleteIt is disappointing that this kind of deception is even allowed on "food" labeling.
ReplyDeleteYep. You ALWAYS have to read the "serving size" on those darn labels. They might suck in a lot of people, but not those of us who've learned from our weight struggles.
ReplyDeleteGrrrrrrr. That is infuriating. Such a blatant attempt to misrepresent the calories while in the guise of responsible labelling. grrrrrrr
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, if I recall correctly the last big PR about labeling, Coke promised it would present the full calorie count for the container, and not the value per serving.
Not surprised, after reading this article about Coke recently: http://tiny.cc/dcjig
ReplyDeleteMy anger and frustration with these types of things is getting stronger by the day!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mama B. - the practice should be outlawed
Mark
I've always wondered why a bottle contains 2.36 servings. Not to mention the fact that the bottle is an irregular shape, so figuring out how much you should drink to reach that calorie count is far from easy.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't find it terribly difficult to read calorie counts; just look for the number of servings as well as the calories.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I wouldn't drink regular Coca-Cola unless I was dying of thirst and there was no other potable liquid in sight. Despite my obese condition, I have never liked sugary soft drinks.
And I prefer TAB and DIET PEPSI to DIET COKE.