返回档案库

案例库 · 广告与公关 · 市场决策 · 2013

这条还没译成中文,下面是英文原文。

Naked Juice called itself 'all natural' — the ingredients said otherwise

2013: PepsiCo's Naked Juice paid $9M — its 'all natural' and 'non-GMO' labels covered synthetic fibres and GM soy.

Naked Juice · PepsiCo · 2013-07

怎么回事

Naked Juice, a PepsiCo-owned smoothie and juice brand, built its image on bottles labelled '100% Juice', 'All Natural' and 'Non-GMO'. The labels were the pitch: a pure, unprocessed drink that charged a premium on that promise.

In Pappas v. Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, a class action filed in California, plaintiffs alleged the products were not all natural and not GMO-free. Testing showed the drinks contained synthetic fibre ingredients such as Fibersol-2, fructooligosaccharides and inulin, and used genetically modified soy. The 'all natural' claim did not survive scrutiny of the ingredient panel next to it.

A settlement reached in July 2013 and finally approved in January 2014 cost Naked Juice $9 million, with class members able to claim refunds of up to $75. The brand also agreed to stop advertising its products as 'all natural' and to have an independent lab verify any 'non-GMO' statements for at least three years.

为什么会这样

  • The 'all natural' label was the product's premium position, and the ingredients contradicted it.
  • Synthetic fibres and GM soy sat under a '100% natural' claim a customer could read on the same bottle.
  • The advertising built the whole brand on a word the actual recipe could not support.
代价$9M settlement; 'all natural' claim dropped代价高昂

教训

'All natural' is a claim, not decoration: when the recipe contains synthetic fibre and GM soy, the word on the label is a misrepresentation — and the brand paid for the gap between the two.

后来呢

Naked Juice stopped using 'all natural' and agreed to independent lab verification of its non-GMO labels for three years, with a dedicated quality-control manager for five.

资料来源

发现哪里写错了?告诉我们。

Comments · 0

    登录 后就能评论。

    类似的案例

    这家公司栽倒的地方,别处有人漂亮地解开过。 第二意见 →