This is one of my favorite advertisements of all time. Take a look...
The amount of symbolism is palpable. In familiar Nike fashion, an astounding amount of symbolism, motivating athletic imagery, and scariness all work in unison to effectively place Nike atop the psyche of many American athletes and sports fans.
Each of the athletes begins the commercial in a poorly lit grey enclosed space, standing poised in preparation for some type of battle or conflict. As the dramatic (and sort of creepy) music begins to really get going, each athlete begins to prepare for 'battle' by performing warm-up activities common to their respective sports. They each have an intimidating glare in their eyes, as it suggests that there is nothing funny or lighthearted about what is about to commence.
each athlete, depending upon his own personal attributes as a professional, suddenly appears with a mask that symbolizes the type of transformation that takes place as each player engages in the 'battle' that is a game. For example, Brian Urlacher, a linebacker for the Chicago Bears is known as a destructive brute enforcer. He hits hard and shows no remorse. His mask was a large cube of barbed wire. Imagery of a wrecking ball smashing into a wall, destroying all structural integrity was shown in parallel to Mr. Urlacher. His warrior persona is the 'wrecking ball'. Other symbols of note were San Diego Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson as a horned antelope, New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera is symbolized by the mask he wears - a scorpion-inspired piece of head gear that pays homage to the deadly venomous qualities of the scorpion.
These masks serve as symbols towards the contention that these professional athletes, when placed in a competitive athletic setting, become something other than themselves. They become something fierce, scary, unforgiving, deadly, instinctual, primal. They take on the attributes best suited to make them unstoppable forces on the field. This is not unlike the internal psychological transformations - the masks we wear during our daily lives. For example, many of us are flat out uncomfortable with confrontation, but when faced with the situation in which we have to fire someone, we put on a mask. We convince ourselves, if only for 5 minutes, that we are the type of person with tough enough skin to be completely unaffected by stripping someone of their job - of their livelihood.
Every day, we put on masks that make us feel more comfortable, better equipped to face life's challenges. This Nike ad expresses it in impressive fashion - even as it's imperical purpose is merely to sell tight-fitting performance apparel.
Source: Youtube.com
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Cheerios...for Gorillas
Upon first viewing the following Cheerios commercial, I immediately noted the humanization of the featured gorilla. It seems as though this ape - for whatever reason, was at some point in the past, displaced from its natural habitat and strewn into human culture. One assumes while watching this ad that this is not the first time this gorilla has been in a grocery store, however it still struggles with the trivial task of separating the two sides of those small, transparent produce bags.
As you watch the gorilla struggle through the rigmarole of civilized (human) grocery shopping culture, you can't help but feel for the poor ape. Aside from the bag issue, it has a difficult time finding anything in the store that it likes - aside from bananas, of course. What a tough life it must be for a gorilla living in a human society...
A contributing factor to my emotional reaction to this ad was the music. It painted the scene for a sympathetic and remorseful response as the ape seemed dejected and sad whilst pacing the isles of the store with nothing but bananas in its cart. The tone of the scene changed completely when the gorilla came across Banana & Nut Cheerios. The ape, upon realizing the banana content of this new product, became overwhelmed with enthusiasm as it began piling boxes upon boxes of the Banana & Nut Cheerios into the its cart. The part of this scene that really caught my attention was when the ape began to pull bunches of bananas out of the cart to make room for more boxes of the new Cheerios offering. To me, this was clearly Cheerios Brand Manager's effort to communicate that nothing - not even bananas, gets closer to the sweet banana flavor of Banana & Nut Cheerios. After all, the cereal does claim to contain real bananas.
The standard yellow colorization of Cheerios was unsurprisingly retained for this Banana & Nut brand extension (given that bananas are most often yellow). I thought that the color yellow, as it is shown on the box of Banana & Nut Cheerios, was effectively consistent with the tone of triumph and optimism that was realized by the gorilla as it had its epiphany, right there in the cereal isle. The music changed, optimism overtook the ape, and it made its way towards the checkout lanes.
As I take a step back after having watched this ad five times, I feel like it makes an emotional connection with everyone who has ever felt frustrated or lost in the grocery store, as they struggle to either find what they are looking for or labor to pick out products that their loved ones would enjoy. Cheerios places itself as a godsend for those frustrated souls as it offers itself as a yellow ray of light and symbol of hope.
Source: youtube.com
As you watch the gorilla struggle through the rigmarole of civilized (human) grocery shopping culture, you can't help but feel for the poor ape. Aside from the bag issue, it has a difficult time finding anything in the store that it likes - aside from bananas, of course. What a tough life it must be for a gorilla living in a human society...
A contributing factor to my emotional reaction to this ad was the music. It painted the scene for a sympathetic and remorseful response as the ape seemed dejected and sad whilst pacing the isles of the store with nothing but bananas in its cart. The tone of the scene changed completely when the gorilla came across Banana & Nut Cheerios. The ape, upon realizing the banana content of this new product, became overwhelmed with enthusiasm as it began piling boxes upon boxes of the Banana & Nut Cheerios into the its cart. The part of this scene that really caught my attention was when the ape began to pull bunches of bananas out of the cart to make room for more boxes of the new Cheerios offering. To me, this was clearly Cheerios Brand Manager's effort to communicate that nothing - not even bananas, gets closer to the sweet banana flavor of Banana & Nut Cheerios. After all, the cereal does claim to contain real bananas.
The standard yellow colorization of Cheerios was unsurprisingly retained for this Banana & Nut brand extension (given that bananas are most often yellow). I thought that the color yellow, as it is shown on the box of Banana & Nut Cheerios, was effectively consistent with the tone of triumph and optimism that was realized by the gorilla as it had its epiphany, right there in the cereal isle. The music changed, optimism overtook the ape, and it made its way towards the checkout lanes.
As I take a step back after having watched this ad five times, I feel like it makes an emotional connection with everyone who has ever felt frustrated or lost in the grocery store, as they struggle to either find what they are looking for or labor to pick out products that their loved ones would enjoy. Cheerios places itself as a godsend for those frustrated souls as it offers itself as a yellow ray of light and symbol of hope.
Source: youtube.com
Friday, February 19, 2010
The NFL Playoffs: Preparing for Battle
Football and the National Football League are perhaps the central figure in American sports culture. However, on an international basis, American football is largely misunderstood and unpopular. The following Gatorade commercial communicates the essence of the NFL playoffs in a symbolic and trans-cultural way that touches on some of the most primal rituals of humankind. Take a look.
In this video, you are brought along the journey - from the initial field of twelve playoff teams all the way down to the final deciding moment of the Super Bowl. Gatorade predictably incorporates its products throughout every stage of this physically and emotionally trying journey, but although Gatorade was the common thread throughout this ad, it was not the central theme that I gathered.
The symbolism of 'preparing for battle' was the the most powerful aspect of this commercial, for me. The verbiage noted below make the presence of this symbolism crystal clear.
While the rules of American football are largely lost in translation, the primal rituals behind 'preparing for battle' with your closest comrades is quite familiar on a trans-cultural basis. While much less is at stake during a game of football than during a savage war amongst competing forces of mankind, the parallels are quite bold and the tenseness in the air of this advertisement is quite palatable. The emotional force behind sport is captured in this Gatorade commercial - a crucial and recurring reason why Gatorade has managed to position its brand so effectively within the passionate arena of American sport.
Sources: Youtube.com, AdsOfTheWorld.com
In this video, you are brought along the journey - from the initial field of twelve playoff teams all the way down to the final deciding moment of the Super Bowl. Gatorade predictably incorporates its products throughout every stage of this physically and emotionally trying journey, but although Gatorade was the common thread throughout this ad, it was not the central theme that I gathered.
The symbolism of 'preparing for battle' was the the most powerful aspect of this commercial, for me. The verbiage noted below make the presence of this symbolism crystal clear.
"Twelve tribes converge.
Twelve plead...
Twelve prime themselves for the struggle...
Twelve take the field...
Eight collide...
Eight pay the toll...
Eight perform something selfless, relentless, beautiful...
Four catch their breath..Four clear their heads...
Four pick up the pieces...
Four recover...
Four try to do better, play harder...
Two will emerge...
Two will clash...
Two will battle...
While two show us the heart, hustle, and soul of the game...
ONE WILL BE REMEMBERED. "
While the rules of American football are largely lost in translation, the primal rituals behind 'preparing for battle' with your closest comrades is quite familiar on a trans-cultural basis. While much less is at stake during a game of football than during a savage war amongst competing forces of mankind, the parallels are quite bold and the tenseness in the air of this advertisement is quite palatable. The emotional force behind sport is captured in this Gatorade commercial - a crucial and recurring reason why Gatorade has managed to position its brand so effectively within the passionate arena of American sport.
Sources: Youtube.com, AdsOfTheWorld.com
Silky Seduction
In American consumer culture, there is a general and widespread reluctance to adopt, let alone try soy products. As Americans have slowly inched towards food and drink that have a greater perception of healthfulness, Silk soy milk has had some success in the United States and print advertisements like this one are a notable contributing factor. Most Americans grew up without exposure to soy products. Consequently, many view soy as a strange-tasting, unattractive alternative to more traditional sources of protein - such as chicken, beef, pork, milk, and cheese. Americans are attached to the taste of their milk and are thus unlikely to give soy milk the light of day, unless it is proven that soy milk tastes delicious and delectable in its own right.
This advertisement makes a blatant effort to connect to the American love-affair with their sugary treats. The poster-boy of all tasty treats - a chocolate ice cream cone is depicted within the waterfall of Silk soy milk as it collects (and is about to overflow) within the glass. This imagery serves as a means of communicating that Silk is a savory treat - easily likened to chocolate ice cream.
The small blurb in the lower left corner touts Silk for it's heart-healthy protein and it's ability to both strengthen your body and satisfy your taste-buds simultaneously. Making mention to the heart was a strategic move because Americans have been taught since the national low-fat campaign in the 1950s that foods high in saturated fat (many of which are protein-rich foods) should be avoided. Silk is thus, a perfect protein source, as it is heart healthy, natural, deliciously guilt-free, and a means to both physically and symbolically gain strength.
Take another look at the outflow of Silk as it nearly reaches the glass. There is an image of a woman excitedly traveling down the slide of Silk. She has her hands up as wind blows through her hair - much in the same way someone would experience a ride at a theme park. Marc Gobe, author of Brandjam: Humanizing Brands Through Emotional Design would enjoy this experiential and emotional play on what it means to immerse yourself in a smooth chocolatey glass of enjoyment. Silk, as suggested by this advertisement, contends that every precious glass offers a wonderful experience for your senses - as it appeals to one's sense of experiential deliciousness and to intelligent healthfulness.
Another author who would make a special connection to the imagery of a woman speeding down a Silk slide of enjoyment is Clotaire Rapaille, the author of The Culture Code: An Ingenious Way to Understand Why People Around the World Live and Buy as They Do. According to him, the American culture code for health and wellness is MOVEMENT. With that said, this woman is clearly moving at a high rate of speed down into the pool of soy milk, having metaphorically punched a one-way ticket to health&wellness-ville by making the choice to drink Silk.
The first word that came to mind as I viewed this advertisement was the seduction. The marketing team at Silk is obviously keen to the trend of American consumers reluctance to make soy products a part of everyday life. This advertisement is thus, a means to seduce consumers into trial - by appealing to some pretty strong sensory images. Clotaire Rapaille would also be able to draw a conclusion from this insight because he states that the American code for seduction is MANIPULATION.
In all honesty, this advertisement and the marketing mindset behind it, is a means to manipulate their target audience into at least trying Silk soy milk to see whether or not they find any chocolate ice cream-like qualities in their first trial.
I personally have tried Silk in the past and it is indeed delicious. The imagery in this print ad only makes me want a glass right now. My feelings towards this product however, cannot be applied to cover a mass audience of American consumers though. I have crossed the threshold and tried it. Many American consumers, unfortunately may never get that far.
Source: Silksoymilk.com
World Wildlife Foundation
I came across a print advertisement from the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and was immediately taken aback by the emotional direction from which it came. The premise that spans over this advertisement is that us humans need to realize that our planet's wildlife is under fire and that the wellness of various species is not out of our hands or unrelated to our own well being.
The ad pictured above shows a parrot superimposed over a man's arm - sitting atop the vein as if it were a tree branch in the wild. The tag line states, "Don't cut the rain forest!" This message works on multiple levels. First of all, telling people not to cut the rain forest is a message that doesn't need the company of any imagery. We all know that the massive deforestation of the planet is having a negative impact on our environment, but for the immediate purposes of mankind, most view the presence of the rain forest as something that does not directly impact them.
The second and more potent meaning behind the parrot advertisement is that if you cut the rain forest, you will kill yourself - or at least cause great physical harm to yourself. The type of catastrophic bleeding that would commence once cutting a vein in your arm is likened to the scare damage done to planet Earth and all of its inhabitants. This ad has a certain underlying fear-evoking quality that encourages action by appealing to peoples' most primal need - to protect their own lives.
source: adsoftheworld.com
Valentine's Day - A Testosterone-Laden Solution
To me, this ad says, "As an MGD man, you live the highlife every day. You are a real man's man. You tell it like it is and make the tough decisions - all whilst setting emotion aside, where it belongs. It appears as though February fourteenth has come and gone - just another day...Well when living the highlife it's just another day. Unfortunately, the lady says otherwise. You have missed out on something. Oops... Good thing MGD has your back. It's never too late to give that special Valentine's Day gift...The Miller way... These coupons ought to do the trick...Now if you could just find some scissors..."
This print advertisement, although gender neutral in its printed form, seems to almost blatantly appeal to male consumers. Males are the ones to most often forget about Valentine's Day and are also the most likely to drink Miller Genuine Draft. MGD professes that it is there for us forgetful guys. MDG will always be there to help us out of tough binds just like this one. The humorous, yet real-life reflective coupons allude to some common American topics that are so often relevant amongst couples; control over the remote, the expectation that you go out together and be social, the massage and its power as forgiveness-earning tool, and the issue of who is 'right' in an argument were all represented.
On the most basic level, this advertisement stays consistent with the cultural norm that men are unemotional thinkers (instead of 'feelers'). If they had been 'feelers', their emotional sides would have lead them to remember Valentine's Day in the first place. Thank goodness men are thinkers - because this coupon idea was a stroke of genius.
The marketing efforts of beer companies in general, never take themselves too seriously. Instead, the playful, fun, and comedic side of life is highlighted. Funny scenarios of lighthearted consequence are commonplace, and this print ad was no different. In many real life relationships, if one half were to forget about an important milestone in their life together, it would suggest a deeper issue or problem - a situation that some silly coupon cut-outs wouldn't be able to solve. But in the fantasized world of beer advertisements, a Miller drinker could just present these nifty coupons and his/her significant other would just forget about the entire bout of forgetful insensitivity. Marketers feast off of consumers' ability and overall willingness to see themselves in these lighthearted situations in which consequences to actions are mere slaps on the wrist. It is a natural tendency for people to psychologically place themselves in these favorable situations as they are brought about by marketers, because many can see themselves being a tad forgetful at times - and they will always like to hope that their significant other would be so understanding and laid back about the fall-out.
Source: adsoftheworld.com
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Serving Size Trickery
As American consumers have become increasingly conscious of the ingredients and nutritional characteristics of the foods and drinks they buy, the relative importance of the nutrition facts label has grown dramatically. These days - at least for a sizable segment of the market, the contents of the nutrition facts label are more important to purchase decisions than are logos, slogans, color schemes, imagery, side-of-the-label recipes, rebates, or even the brand name of the product.
I contend that for many brands, the way information is communicated via the Nutrition Facts label is as much a facet of that brand's marketing mix as are any other attributes of the product's packaging. For example, a box of General Mills Cocoa Puffs claims that it is both a "Good" Source of Calcium and Vitamin D", and that the product is "Whole Grain Guaranteed". Both claims appear very boldly on the front of the box. Many consumers, when greeted with such bold claims of healthfulness, will turn the box to take a look at the Nutrition Facts. This panel is overloaded with information, percentages, units of measure, vitamins, minerals, ingredients - many of which cannot be pronounced by your average American, non-chemist consumer. How much of these Nutrition Facts labels do people really read? My guess is, maybe 2-3 lines. For a product like Cocoa Puffs, consumers may take a quick glance at the sugar content, calories, and maybe one of the five lines that address the fat content of the product. Any more close observation than that, and we are dealing with a real outlier of a customer - at least by my estimation.
Let's not leave this subject of the "outlier consumer" just yet. What if he or she does in fact take a longer than average look at the Nutrition Facts? He or she may take a look at every line from calories down to protein and all the way through the sometimes giant list of vitamins and minerals. This consumer may even take the time to read through the (also often times lengthy) list of ingredients. Would this particular consumer have a pretty good grasp on the general healthfulness of Cocoa Puffs after all of this time spent on the side of the box? I contend, "No" - because if one tiny aspect of this Nutrition Facts label is overlooked, then almost all of the rest is moot. What is this often overlooked nugget of information? Serving size.
Let's be honest with ourselves. In general, we are rushed during our usual super market excursions. We either just got off of work and are anxious to get home, or we flat-out hate shopping for groceries. We've already established that most consumers wouldn't spend the time to look over the ENTIRE Nutrition Facts label, or even more than a few lines. When we glance at the plethora of percentages, we view these percentages as portions of our recommended daily allowance for each nutrient - once again, we assume that these percentages apply to each of us. Should each of us base our individual diets on the same generic number of daily calories? Obviously not, but let's assume for a second that these recommended daily allowances do apply to us. The question remains - "how many Cocoa Puffs actually make up these percentages printed on the side of the box?
It says 2% of my daily total fat intake - so how many Cocoa Puffs is that? Again, an ordinary person eats a bowl of cereal at a time, and since we are Americans, our bowls and plates are more often than not, super-sized. We are after all the culture that views food as fuel, and what is the point of a meal? To "fill up". And how do we fill up? We use bowls and plates large enough to cut down on the amount of times we have to refill that bowl or plate. With that said, most American consumers make the assumption that a serving size of Cocoa Puffs is a bowl-full (using whatever large sized bowl he or she is accustomed to). Sure, this consumer may think for a split second, that the serving size alluded to by General Mills may not be EXACTLY the same as their own cereal bowls, but it can't be that big of a difference can it? Think again.
The serving size for Cocoa Puffs is 3/4 of a cup or about 27 grams. Personally, I don't think in terms of grams. If someone asks me to pour 27 grams of Cocoa Puffs into a bowl I am going to have a rough time knowing when to stop pouring. 3/4 of a cup is a little bit more of a manageable way to phrase it, but could that amount of Cocoa Puffs really be eyeballed? Not likely - unless you are someone who measures foods for recipes multiple times weekly. If we are looking at these Nutrition Facts and assigning any kind of relative importance to them, then we better know how many to eat at a time - so the percentages and numbers of calories are actually valid. I was curious to see what one serving of Cocoa Puffs actually looks like in one of my "large American"cereal bowls. I used a measuring cup and began to pour. Before I could stop the flow of chocolate-flavored goodness into the measuring cup, I had already over-poured the 3/4 cup mark. I made the proper adjustment and then poured this serving of cereal into one of my cereal bowls. I knew it was going to look like a pathetic, puny amount of cereal, and I was right.
If I had to approximate the amount of servings (as General Mills had defined it) that the average 24 year old American eats per bowl of cereal, I would say 3-4 servings could potentially be conservative. Just to be clear, I am saying that the real American serving size for Cocoa Puffs could realistically be around 4 times the 3/4 printed on the side of the box. How does this translate in terms of nutrition facts? A bowl of Cocoa Puffs goes from 110 calories to 440 calories, from 12 to 48 grams of sugar, and from 1.5 grams of total fat to 6 grams.
The moral of the story is that General Mills and hundreds of other food and drink companies maintain serving sizes that when compared to actual consumer behavior, are flat-out unrealistic. I don't believe that this is by mere coincidence. General Mills marketing managers know that their idea of a serving size is a mere fraction of the average American bowl of cereal, and they also know that when a consumer takes his or her usual 4-second glance at the Nutrition Facts, 110 calories looks a lot more appealing than a robust 440 calories.
There is an entire set of underlying psychological evaluations that go on as a consumer eyeballs the Nutrition Facts of a box of cereal. If the person sees relatively low numbers for all of the "bad stuff" like fats, calories, carbs, and sugars, then the cereal has likely passed the test. Into the shopping cart you go, Sonny the Cocoa Puffs mascot. But if the method by which these small numbers and percentages were derived is misleading or flawed, then the entire basis by which Nutrition Facts are communicated is a sham. This is the same kind of dishonesty that I have observed when drinking a small bottle of juice. By simply looking at the size of this bottle, it would be obvious to 99.999% of consumers that it should be labeled as one serving - given that most people will drink it with a meal. But when the juice bottle has "servings per container: 2" printed on the side, that is just plain dishonest - in my opinion. Of course, the producer of this product could say that technically they didn't do anything wrong, given that all nutrition facts are printed on the side of the bottle, for everyone to see. But these companies make these decisions about what numbers to print, knowing whether or not they will be read and interpreted by consumers. When a relatively small bottle of apple juice says 120 calories, I am going to logically assume that after I finish with the entire bottle, I will have downed 120 calories. I don't expect to have had the wool pulled over my eyes by Juicy Juice because I didn't dedicate an extra 3 seconds to take a look at the 'servings per container'.
No wonder consumers are becoming so paranoid about the purchase decisions they make. The companies preparing and packaging their food are on a mission to take advantage of every single bit of ignorance or laziness that a consumer will dare to let show. As an MBA candidate who is perhaps about to enter this industry, I wish that companies could all begin to be a little more transparent with their customers. I realize that it is very unrealistic to think that companies like General Mills will decide one day to suddenly be more honest when their primary competitors have yet to make such a conscious commitment. It will likely take the iron fist of the FDA to enforce new laws. Everyone eats food and therefore everyone is a consumer. Why should the vast majority of consumers have these types of vital insights consciously held from them, while a small percentage of industry insiders - like the ones responsible for the 'serving size trickery', actually know what numbers to focus upon when at the grocery store. I say that marketing teams in these relevant food industries need to begin packaging their products and structuring their Nutrition Facts in more honest and intuitive ways. Like I stated at the beginning of this blog post; Nutrition Facts are as much of an influence on purchase decisions as the brand name itself, so why is it that marketing decision makers are allowed to uphold such misleading labeling without any repercussions or backlash from the FDA?
In looking at other brands of cereal, I have found that many (but not all) use the same 3/4 cup serving size - so at the very least, consumers can compare the nutrition facts of one to the other. But no matter whether I choose Golden Grahams or Cocoa Puffs, if I end up pouring 4 servings into my bowl without realizing it, then I will have become the victim of labeling deception.
*******
My assertions throughout this blog post have been based purely upon my own assumptions of American consumer behavior and common sense. I know how I consume and I have spent years of my life observing how others do, as well. If you have any comment as to whether or not you believe marketing managers or other business executives bear any responsibility to be transparent or at least to not mislead their customer bases, please leave a comment at the bottom of the page. I am also interested to hear whether or not you believe that marketing managers are or should be the ones making decisions about information that appears on the Nutrition Facts label.
I contend that for many brands, the way information is communicated via the Nutrition Facts label is as much a facet of that brand's marketing mix as are any other attributes of the product's packaging. For example, a box of General Mills Cocoa Puffs claims that it is both a "Good" Source of Calcium and Vitamin D", and that the product is "Whole Grain Guaranteed". Both claims appear very boldly on the front of the box. Many consumers, when greeted with such bold claims of healthfulness, will turn the box to take a look at the Nutrition Facts. This panel is overloaded with information, percentages, units of measure, vitamins, minerals, ingredients - many of which cannot be pronounced by your average American, non-chemist consumer. How much of these Nutrition Facts labels do people really read? My guess is, maybe 2-3 lines. For a product like Cocoa Puffs, consumers may take a quick glance at the sugar content, calories, and maybe one of the five lines that address the fat content of the product. Any more close observation than that, and we are dealing with a real outlier of a customer - at least by my estimation.
Let's not leave this subject of the "outlier consumer" just yet. What if he or she does in fact take a longer than average look at the Nutrition Facts? He or she may take a look at every line from calories down to protein and all the way through the sometimes giant list of vitamins and minerals. This consumer may even take the time to read through the (also often times lengthy) list of ingredients. Would this particular consumer have a pretty good grasp on the general healthfulness of Cocoa Puffs after all of this time spent on the side of the box? I contend, "No" - because if one tiny aspect of this Nutrition Facts label is overlooked, then almost all of the rest is moot. What is this often overlooked nugget of information? Serving size.
Let's be honest with ourselves. In general, we are rushed during our usual super market excursions. We either just got off of work and are anxious to get home, or we flat-out hate shopping for groceries. We've already established that most consumers wouldn't spend the time to look over the ENTIRE Nutrition Facts label, or even more than a few lines. When we glance at the plethora of percentages, we view these percentages as portions of our recommended daily allowance for each nutrient - once again, we assume that these percentages apply to each of us. Should each of us base our individual diets on the same generic number of daily calories? Obviously not, but let's assume for a second that these recommended daily allowances do apply to us. The question remains - "how many Cocoa Puffs actually make up these percentages printed on the side of the box?
It says 2% of my daily total fat intake - so how many Cocoa Puffs is that? Again, an ordinary person eats a bowl of cereal at a time, and since we are Americans, our bowls and plates are more often than not, super-sized. We are after all the culture that views food as fuel, and what is the point of a meal? To "fill up". And how do we fill up? We use bowls and plates large enough to cut down on the amount of times we have to refill that bowl or plate. With that said, most American consumers make the assumption that a serving size of Cocoa Puffs is a bowl-full (using whatever large sized bowl he or she is accustomed to). Sure, this consumer may think for a split second, that the serving size alluded to by General Mills may not be EXACTLY the same as their own cereal bowls, but it can't be that big of a difference can it? Think again.
The serving size for Cocoa Puffs is 3/4 of a cup or about 27 grams. Personally, I don't think in terms of grams. If someone asks me to pour 27 grams of Cocoa Puffs into a bowl I am going to have a rough time knowing when to stop pouring. 3/4 of a cup is a little bit more of a manageable way to phrase it, but could that amount of Cocoa Puffs really be eyeballed? Not likely - unless you are someone who measures foods for recipes multiple times weekly. If we are looking at these Nutrition Facts and assigning any kind of relative importance to them, then we better know how many to eat at a time - so the percentages and numbers of calories are actually valid. I was curious to see what one serving of Cocoa Puffs actually looks like in one of my "large American"cereal bowls. I used a measuring cup and began to pour. Before I could stop the flow of chocolate-flavored goodness into the measuring cup, I had already over-poured the 3/4 cup mark. I made the proper adjustment and then poured this serving of cereal into one of my cereal bowls. I knew it was going to look like a pathetic, puny amount of cereal, and I was right.
If I had to approximate the amount of servings (as General Mills had defined it) that the average 24 year old American eats per bowl of cereal, I would say 3-4 servings could potentially be conservative. Just to be clear, I am saying that the real American serving size for Cocoa Puffs could realistically be around 4 times the 3/4 printed on the side of the box. How does this translate in terms of nutrition facts? A bowl of Cocoa Puffs goes from 110 calories to 440 calories, from 12 to 48 grams of sugar, and from 1.5 grams of total fat to 6 grams.
The moral of the story is that General Mills and hundreds of other food and drink companies maintain serving sizes that when compared to actual consumer behavior, are flat-out unrealistic. I don't believe that this is by mere coincidence. General Mills marketing managers know that their idea of a serving size is a mere fraction of the average American bowl of cereal, and they also know that when a consumer takes his or her usual 4-second glance at the Nutrition Facts, 110 calories looks a lot more appealing than a robust 440 calories.
There is an entire set of underlying psychological evaluations that go on as a consumer eyeballs the Nutrition Facts of a box of cereal. If the person sees relatively low numbers for all of the "bad stuff" like fats, calories, carbs, and sugars, then the cereal has likely passed the test. Into the shopping cart you go, Sonny the Cocoa Puffs mascot. But if the method by which these small numbers and percentages were derived is misleading or flawed, then the entire basis by which Nutrition Facts are communicated is a sham. This is the same kind of dishonesty that I have observed when drinking a small bottle of juice. By simply looking at the size of this bottle, it would be obvious to 99.999% of consumers that it should be labeled as one serving - given that most people will drink it with a meal. But when the juice bottle has "servings per container: 2" printed on the side, that is just plain dishonest - in my opinion. Of course, the producer of this product could say that technically they didn't do anything wrong, given that all nutrition facts are printed on the side of the bottle, for everyone to see. But these companies make these decisions about what numbers to print, knowing whether or not they will be read and interpreted by consumers. When a relatively small bottle of apple juice says 120 calories, I am going to logically assume that after I finish with the entire bottle, I will have downed 120 calories. I don't expect to have had the wool pulled over my eyes by Juicy Juice because I didn't dedicate an extra 3 seconds to take a look at the 'servings per container'.
No wonder consumers are becoming so paranoid about the purchase decisions they make. The companies preparing and packaging their food are on a mission to take advantage of every single bit of ignorance or laziness that a consumer will dare to let show. As an MBA candidate who is perhaps about to enter this industry, I wish that companies could all begin to be a little more transparent with their customers. I realize that it is very unrealistic to think that companies like General Mills will decide one day to suddenly be more honest when their primary competitors have yet to make such a conscious commitment. It will likely take the iron fist of the FDA to enforce new laws. Everyone eats food and therefore everyone is a consumer. Why should the vast majority of consumers have these types of vital insights consciously held from them, while a small percentage of industry insiders - like the ones responsible for the 'serving size trickery', actually know what numbers to focus upon when at the grocery store. I say that marketing teams in these relevant food industries need to begin packaging their products and structuring their Nutrition Facts in more honest and intuitive ways. Like I stated at the beginning of this blog post; Nutrition Facts are as much of an influence on purchase decisions as the brand name itself, so why is it that marketing decision makers are allowed to uphold such misleading labeling without any repercussions or backlash from the FDA?
In looking at other brands of cereal, I have found that many (but not all) use the same 3/4 cup serving size - so at the very least, consumers can compare the nutrition facts of one to the other. But no matter whether I choose Golden Grahams or Cocoa Puffs, if I end up pouring 4 servings into my bowl without realizing it, then I will have become the victim of labeling deception.
*******
My assertions throughout this blog post have been based purely upon my own assumptions of American consumer behavior and common sense. I know how I consume and I have spent years of my life observing how others do, as well. If you have any comment as to whether or not you believe marketing managers or other business executives bear any responsibility to be transparent or at least to not mislead their customer bases, please leave a comment at the bottom of the page. I am also interested to hear whether or not you believe that marketing managers are or should be the ones making decisions about information that appears on the Nutrition Facts label.
Now with Extra Whitening!
Recently, I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror and realized that maybe all the tea, fruits, juices, and other teeth-staining food and drink that I so frequently come in contact with have perhaps taken my chompers a shade or two away from pristine pearly white. Upon this realization, I immediately embarked upon a toothpaste-seeking excursion. Instead of checking the label of my tube-in-use so that I could gauge the whitening power of what my teeth had become accustomed to, I made the proclamation that I needed something new, something different, something that had some "real whitening power" - whatever that means. Perhaps this somewhat rash decision-making process was a side effect of being an American consumer of my age group - a millennial, as we are often called. I noticed a problem and immediately decided that going out and purchasing a different brand, a different type of toothpaste was the solution to that problem. Instead of making use of my current product or even doing a little online research before heading out to the store, I felt compelled to simply go out, shop, and buy. Looking back, I can't help but think that other segments of the market - perhaps older consumers would have taken a different approach. I wanted a change and I wanted it right at that moment - immediate results, immediate improvements. No patience. Whiter teeth, now. Us millennials require instant gratification, after all.
The next thing I knew, I found myself in front of the amazingly full collection that is the Wal-Mart toothpaste selection. It took me about 3 or 4 minutes before I could find my bearings and realize the full breadth of this bountiful harvest of fluoride-induced happiness. I had to tell myself, "Casey, you are here to find whitening power! Focus!"
So I snapped back into concentrated consumer mode. I began examining the different brands and corresponding sparkly boxes. Crest, Colgate, Arm & Hammer, Aquafresh, Pro Health, Fluoride, Anti-cavity, enamel protection. It occurred to me that I may be in this isle for a while.
In a category that would seemingly be commoditized by now, I saw a lot of variety - at least that's how it appeared at first. Most products that I picked up and examined made claims of cavity protection, fluoride content, tartar control, and in a recent trend - many now claim to maintain and/or build upon your enamel. Additionally, almost every single toothpaste - no matter the brand - made some sort of mention of whitening capabilities. Such whitening capabilities were not organized in standardized verbiage within this category - quite the contrary, in fact. I observed so many different ways of stating that "this toothpaste can make your teeth whiter" that I began to assemble a mental ranking of the whitening claims seemed to represent the highest potency.
For the sake of levity, here is a list of the different claims of whitening power that collectively managed to force the expulsion of my mental energy, right there in the toothpaste isle.
***Gentle Whitening
***Whitening
***Multicare Whitening
***Whitening Booster - 2X more whitening agent
***Pro Health Whitening - for visibly whiter teeth
***Polishes for extra whiteness
***Advance White
***Visible White
***Clinically proven to whiten teeth
***Whitening oxygen bubbles
***w/ Extra Whitening
***Max White with Mini Bright Strips
Simply put, I had some thinking to do. Which claims are believable? Is there any real difference in what each brand, each product claims? If one Crest product claims "Extra Whitening" and another Crest toothpaste claims to be "clinically proven to whiten", am I to assume that the one with "Extra Whitening" was not clinically proven? Is Crest holding back the whitening power in some products and consciously going all-out with others? Are the costs of whitening ingredients so high that Crest needs to offer 5-10 different levels of whitening potency? Do any of these whitening claims actually refer to the same amount of whitening power? Is the extra fancy verbiage just a means to "woo" consumers into thinking that they are paying for the best? If there are indeed varying levels of whitening power amongst the various product lines for each brand, who in their right mind would buy the lowest level of whitening - given that all levels of whitening power are all pretty much in the same price range? Is someone out there actually fearful of making their teeth too white? My guess is that most consumers would opt for the highest, strongest whitening power - so long as their teeth would not become too sensitive as a result (but most of these products protect your teeth from over-sensitivity - I think). What about the few toothpastes that do not offer any kind of whitening power? Is there a large customer segment out there that are so used to the candy-like flavor of their standard royal blue toothpaste that they give a collective, "Whitening? No thanks you!" when faced with the choice? The only logical answer I can offer to this question is that maybe customers who avoid whitening do so because they dislike the taste of whitening products or are a bit old fashioned and averse to change. Given the amazing amount of product benefit overlap and confusing verbiage, how is a consumer supposed to make such a tough decision? I will attempt to shed some light on this situation by telling you how I made mine.
After picking up and examining a number of products, reading the claims, and unconsciously forming opinions and ordinal lists for this selection of toothpastes, I began to become a little discouraged. It dawned on me that maybe all of these Crests, Colgates, Aquafresh's were all the same thing - just branded differently. How likely is it that Crest has whitening knowledge and technology that the other brands don't have? I didn't (and still don't) think it's too likely that they hold that type of distinct competitive advantage. Given this minor bout of discomfort, my eyes next focused on the branded offering that seemed like the unique choice - the orange-yellow box - Arm & Hammer. Seeing the nostalgic logo brought a sense of calm to my nerves. Baking soda has been around forever - never changed. It is so versatile and reliable. Their toothpaste would never let me down, would it?
I felt content and relaxed until I came across Arm & Hammer's Peroxicare toothpaste - "with Baking Soda and Peroxide". I had to do a double take. Why is Arm & Hammer making it a point to say that they include baking soda in this product? Don't all Arm & Hammer toothpastes having baking soda in them? Come on, man! What am I supposed to conclude from this?! I suddenly felt alienated from the Arm & Hammer name. Maybe the brand is trying to use the strength of its name without necessarily standing by the whole baking soda tradition, as a minimally required ingredient. Despite this unsettling thought, I targeted Arm & Hammer's Advance White as my best option at this point. This too, was an uneasy choice. Did I want Arm & Hammer Complete Care with Extra Whitening? Or would Arm & Hammer Advance White with Brilliant Sparkle be better? Which one would whiten better? Do I get the "brilliant sparkle" either way? These questions were too difficult for a man of my level of intellect to handle. I moved on.
I found an intriguing product nearby. Arm & Hammer's Whitening Booster was not a toothpaste in itself, but it was a clear agent that you are instructed to add to your usual dab of toothpaste before every brush. It claimed to have twice the whitening agent of your average white strip. I thought to myself, "Whitening Booster, you may be going home with me." This product not only sounded rational and reliable (given the brand), but the purchase of it did not discount the value of any toothpaste already at my home - sunk costs.
I thought that perhaps I was ready for checkout when I stood up and began to walk out of the isle. The glimpse of a top-shelf item caught my eye - Crest 3D White - Advance Vivid Fluoride Anticavity Toothpaste. This seemingly magical little product stood vertically, unlike all of the neanderthal horizontal toothpastes. This little guy seemed sophisticated. A sleek, dark blue box with mystically imprinted white sparkles. I stopped dead in my tracks and took hold of the product for a closer look. I investigated the box to discover something about this product that necessitated an approximate dollar paid per ounce ratio. It stated on the front of the box that it can remove up to 90% of surface stains within 14 days - Plus it protects against future stains. It also made claims of a "patented enamel safe whitening ingredient".
For all I knew, this was all a lot of fluff. I mean, 90% of surface stains? 90% of surface stains for what kind of teeth? Are we talking about a man sporting a nice maple-brown shade in his grill? 90% of stains removed may sound like great results, but the teeth themselves may still be far from what most people would consider white. And the claim to protect against future stains? Isn't that a claim that all toothpastes could make? Isn't the mere act of brushing your teeth in the first place sort of a proactive action against future stains? And what about this 3D talk? Really? I have yet to see a two dimensional bottle of toothpaste in my life, and this one seemed to have just as many dimensions as all the rest. Maybe the people at Crest just ran out of creative names for a premium product? Who knows? I was ready to replace the item on the shelf and be on my merry way - until I spotted an attractive word on the side of this blue box. "Guaranteed". My interest was sparked, so I read the blurb and realized that Crest will refund the purchase price to me if I am unsatisfied with it after use. Would I ever really go through the trouble of asking for a refund on a $4 tube of Crest? Not bloody likely, but the mere fact that they made the guarantee provided me with enough justification to convince myself to spring for the this revolutionary 3D toothpaste.
It was settled. Arm & Hammer's Whitening Booster and my enchanting little Crest 3D White. I couldn't help but think that I had just based my decision process on some very stupid and unfounded logic, but as an American consumer, I got a small rush out of shopping - even if it was just toothpaste. As lame as it sounds, the capability to go out and buy solutions (or at least perceived solutions) to life's little problems was a very empowering feeling. In Rapaille's book, The Culture Code, he states that the American code for shopping is "reconnecting with life". I'm not so sure whether this recent purchase necessarily made me feel more connected with my own life, but I will agree that the experience gave me a strange sense of satisfaction. Sure, I likely wasted about $8 on gimmicky oral hygiene products, but the mere fact that I was free to make my own choices in that isle was enough to justify the purchase and the waste of 20 minutes that went along with it. 'Reconnecting with life' may be a little too emotional of a way to put it, but the experience did remind me how wonderfully free we as consumers are in this country. We can each register a daily vote for our favorite products and services by simply purchasing them. We can each stand by brands for as long or be as brand-fickle as we wish. We as consumers have a lot of power, whether we know it or not - unfortunately a small portion of that power comes from the ability to tell a gimmick from a substantial claim. If anyone has mastered this nuance for the category of toothpaste, give me a call.
The next thing I knew, I found myself in front of the amazingly full collection that is the Wal-Mart toothpaste selection. It took me about 3 or 4 minutes before I could find my bearings and realize the full breadth of this bountiful harvest of fluoride-induced happiness. I had to tell myself, "Casey, you are here to find whitening power! Focus!"
So I snapped back into concentrated consumer mode. I began examining the different brands and corresponding sparkly boxes. Crest, Colgate, Arm & Hammer, Aquafresh, Pro Health, Fluoride, Anti-cavity, enamel protection. It occurred to me that I may be in this isle for a while.
In a category that would seemingly be commoditized by now, I saw a lot of variety - at least that's how it appeared at first. Most products that I picked up and examined made claims of cavity protection, fluoride content, tartar control, and in a recent trend - many now claim to maintain and/or build upon your enamel. Additionally, almost every single toothpaste - no matter the brand - made some sort of mention of whitening capabilities. Such whitening capabilities were not organized in standardized verbiage within this category - quite the contrary, in fact. I observed so many different ways of stating that "this toothpaste can make your teeth whiter" that I began to assemble a mental ranking of the whitening claims seemed to represent the highest potency.
For the sake of levity, here is a list of the different claims of whitening power that collectively managed to force the expulsion of my mental energy, right there in the toothpaste isle.
***Gentle Whitening
***Whitening
***Multicare Whitening
***Whitening Booster - 2X more whitening agent
***Pro Health Whitening - for visibly whiter teeth
***Polishes for extra whiteness
***Advance White
***Visible White
***Clinically proven to whiten teeth
***Whitening oxygen bubbles
***w/ Extra Whitening
***Max White with Mini Bright Strips
Simply put, I had some thinking to do. Which claims are believable? Is there any real difference in what each brand, each product claims? If one Crest product claims "Extra Whitening" and another Crest toothpaste claims to be "clinically proven to whiten", am I to assume that the one with "Extra Whitening" was not clinically proven? Is Crest holding back the whitening power in some products and consciously going all-out with others? Are the costs of whitening ingredients so high that Crest needs to offer 5-10 different levels of whitening potency? Do any of these whitening claims actually refer to the same amount of whitening power? Is the extra fancy verbiage just a means to "woo" consumers into thinking that they are paying for the best? If there are indeed varying levels of whitening power amongst the various product lines for each brand, who in their right mind would buy the lowest level of whitening - given that all levels of whitening power are all pretty much in the same price range? Is someone out there actually fearful of making their teeth too white? My guess is that most consumers would opt for the highest, strongest whitening power - so long as their teeth would not become too sensitive as a result (but most of these products protect your teeth from over-sensitivity - I think). What about the few toothpastes that do not offer any kind of whitening power? Is there a large customer segment out there that are so used to the candy-like flavor of their standard royal blue toothpaste that they give a collective, "Whitening? No thanks you!" when faced with the choice? The only logical answer I can offer to this question is that maybe customers who avoid whitening do so because they dislike the taste of whitening products or are a bit old fashioned and averse to change. Given the amazing amount of product benefit overlap and confusing verbiage, how is a consumer supposed to make such a tough decision? I will attempt to shed some light on this situation by telling you how I made mine.
After picking up and examining a number of products, reading the claims, and unconsciously forming opinions and ordinal lists for this selection of toothpastes, I began to become a little discouraged. It dawned on me that maybe all of these Crests, Colgates, Aquafresh's were all the same thing - just branded differently. How likely is it that Crest has whitening knowledge and technology that the other brands don't have? I didn't (and still don't) think it's too likely that they hold that type of distinct competitive advantage. Given this minor bout of discomfort, my eyes next focused on the branded offering that seemed like the unique choice - the orange-yellow box - Arm & Hammer. Seeing the nostalgic logo brought a sense of calm to my nerves. Baking soda has been around forever - never changed. It is so versatile and reliable. Their toothpaste would never let me down, would it?
I felt content and relaxed until I came across Arm & Hammer's Peroxicare toothpaste - "with Baking Soda and Peroxide". I had to do a double take. Why is Arm & Hammer making it a point to say that they include baking soda in this product? Don't all Arm & Hammer toothpastes having baking soda in them? Come on, man! What am I supposed to conclude from this?! I suddenly felt alienated from the Arm & Hammer name. Maybe the brand is trying to use the strength of its name without necessarily standing by the whole baking soda tradition, as a minimally required ingredient. Despite this unsettling thought, I targeted Arm & Hammer's Advance White as my best option at this point. This too, was an uneasy choice. Did I want Arm & Hammer Complete Care with Extra Whitening? Or would Arm & Hammer Advance White with Brilliant Sparkle be better? Which one would whiten better? Do I get the "brilliant sparkle" either way? These questions were too difficult for a man of my level of intellect to handle. I moved on.
I found an intriguing product nearby. Arm & Hammer's Whitening Booster was not a toothpaste in itself, but it was a clear agent that you are instructed to add to your usual dab of toothpaste before every brush. It claimed to have twice the whitening agent of your average white strip. I thought to myself, "Whitening Booster, you may be going home with me." This product not only sounded rational and reliable (given the brand), but the purchase of it did not discount the value of any toothpaste already at my home - sunk costs.
I thought that perhaps I was ready for checkout when I stood up and began to walk out of the isle. The glimpse of a top-shelf item caught my eye - Crest 3D White - Advance Vivid Fluoride Anticavity Toothpaste. This seemingly magical little product stood vertically, unlike all of the neanderthal horizontal toothpastes. This little guy seemed sophisticated. A sleek, dark blue box with mystically imprinted white sparkles. I stopped dead in my tracks and took hold of the product for a closer look. I investigated the box to discover something about this product that necessitated an approximate dollar paid per ounce ratio. It stated on the front of the box that it can remove up to 90% of surface stains within 14 days - Plus it protects against future stains. It also made claims of a "patented enamel safe whitening ingredient".
For all I knew, this was all a lot of fluff. I mean, 90% of surface stains? 90% of surface stains for what kind of teeth? Are we talking about a man sporting a nice maple-brown shade in his grill? 90% of stains removed may sound like great results, but the teeth themselves may still be far from what most people would consider white. And the claim to protect against future stains? Isn't that a claim that all toothpastes could make? Isn't the mere act of brushing your teeth in the first place sort of a proactive action against future stains? And what about this 3D talk? Really? I have yet to see a two dimensional bottle of toothpaste in my life, and this one seemed to have just as many dimensions as all the rest. Maybe the people at Crest just ran out of creative names for a premium product? Who knows? I was ready to replace the item on the shelf and be on my merry way - until I spotted an attractive word on the side of this blue box. "Guaranteed". My interest was sparked, so I read the blurb and realized that Crest will refund the purchase price to me if I am unsatisfied with it after use. Would I ever really go through the trouble of asking for a refund on a $4 tube of Crest? Not bloody likely, but the mere fact that they made the guarantee provided me with enough justification to convince myself to spring for the this revolutionary 3D toothpaste.
It was settled. Arm & Hammer's Whitening Booster and my enchanting little Crest 3D White. I couldn't help but think that I had just based my decision process on some very stupid and unfounded logic, but as an American consumer, I got a small rush out of shopping - even if it was just toothpaste. As lame as it sounds, the capability to go out and buy solutions (or at least perceived solutions) to life's little problems was a very empowering feeling. In Rapaille's book, The Culture Code, he states that the American code for shopping is "reconnecting with life". I'm not so sure whether this recent purchase necessarily made me feel more connected with my own life, but I will agree that the experience gave me a strange sense of satisfaction. Sure, I likely wasted about $8 on gimmicky oral hygiene products, but the mere fact that I was free to make my own choices in that isle was enough to justify the purchase and the waste of 20 minutes that went along with it. 'Reconnecting with life' may be a little too emotional of a way to put it, but the experience did remind me how wonderfully free we as consumers are in this country. We can each register a daily vote for our favorite products and services by simply purchasing them. We can each stand by brands for as long or be as brand-fickle as we wish. We as consumers have a lot of power, whether we know it or not - unfortunately a small portion of that power comes from the ability to tell a gimmick from a substantial claim. If anyone has mastered this nuance for the category of toothpaste, give me a call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
