Irresponsible Advertising? Kenneth Cole Tweet Nothing vs VitaminWater Ads

February 4th, 2011. By AbiK

Not Funny

The Kenneth Cole reaction (couldn’t resist)—i.e., the outburst over his—or his ghostwriting social media whiz—comment on Twitter the other day raised the question of responsible marketing for many—heck, it’s been front page news all over the media. For those of you who missed it, this was the tweet:

“Millions are in an uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is available online at http://bit.ly/KCairo -KC”

Cole followed up later in the day by taking that tweet down and posting a mea culpa:

“Re Egypt tweet: we weren’t intending to make light of a serious situation. We understand the sensitivity of this historic moment -KC”

Ok. Fine. Yes, the situation in Cairo is serious. Very serious. And yes, there are many who would take offense (clearly) at Cole using the situation to grab a cheap marketing shot. But those who have followed Kenneth Cole for many years are well-accustomed to his brand of advertising—and, like it or not, it’s provocative—intentionally so. And, if so inclined—you can even purchase the coffee table book, Footnotes, which takes you through Cole’s first twenty years of advertising.

But now let’s contrast the Kenneth Cole uproar with the latest ad campaign from VitaminWater. Maybe you’ve heard that the National Consumers League (NCL, a watchdog group) has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over VitaminWater’s use of ad copy such as: “Flu shots are so last year.” The inference, of course, being that in some way, shape, or form VitaminWater is on a par—at the least—or superior to—at the worst—getting a flu shot.

The complaint from the NCL charges that such advertising is dangerously misleading. To add to that, ajc.com quotes Sally Greenberg, executive director of NCL as stating, “One of the reasons we went after them was the claims we so outlandish, downright reckless.”

Funny

VitaminWater (aka Glaceau VitaminWater) is owned by Coca-Cola—it’s founder, Michael Repole, sold it to Coke for $4.1 billion in 2007 and Repole’s recently made headlines for his interest in owning a stake in the NY Mets. Coca-Cola has responded to NCL’s criticism by saying that the ads are meant to be funny.

I can buy that—I like humor. But let’s look at the context here as well. Pick up a bottle of VitaminWater (note, not an endorsement here—just pick one up off the store shelf) and read the label. You’ll find things like “vitamins + water = all you need”. Or like the picture shown here, “that’s like brushing your teeth twice”—bet your dentist will like that one.

That’s not humor—that’s irresponsible.

Humor in advertising is that Staples “Most Wonderful Time of the Year” 30-second spot. Or take just about any Super Bowl ad—Pepsi, Doritos, Volkswagon, GoDaddy, Bud Light—they do “funny”. Betty White = Funny.

No one is going to experience undue harm as a result of having read Kenneth Cole’s tweet. What? Some Kenneth Cole fanatic is going to break a fingernail racing to click her mouse to get to Cole’s bit.ly link for his new spring collection? Please. On the other hand, when you put on a food or drink label that your product is “like brushing your teeth twice” when it’s not, well, that’s misleading. Ditto when you use display ads touting that “flu shots are so last year”.

What? I should drink sugar water instead?

Football isn’t Tennis: Brain Injury Lawsuits Brew on Eve of Super Bowl

February 4th, 2011. By Hunter West

 

Uh, Maybe Not. (Design: good.kv)

This Sunday’s Super Bowl is not only the biggest night in professional football, but also arguably the biggest spectacle in professional sport. Witness the gate, the viewing audience and the lucrative broadcast and advertising contracts.

When you’re watching the big game this Sunday, look for the guys in the three-piece suits standing on the sidelines. No, they’re not journalists. And they won’t have headsets like the coaches do. But they will have binoculars, and notepads.

Those guys will be the lawyers—working for the teams, the league, and the players association. They’ll be watching every play, every tackle, taking notes.

They will disappear just before the Gatorade starts flying. Unless, of course somebody gets beaned in the head by the Gatorade bucket and incurs a concussion. That will bring the lawyers back for more note taking. 

Of course, I’m taking license with reality, here. There will be no suits impeding the pending war between the Steelers and the Packers. But make no mistake: the legal Beagles are catching up with pro football…

As recently reported in publications such as the New Yorker and Slate, the National Football League (NFL) is potentially facing two class-action lawsuits brought by players alleging the NFL knew, or suppressed knowledge of the long-term neurological risks of playing football. The latter stance alleging fraud would be the most aggressive. A lesser position would be one of negligence—to wit, the league was not aware, but should have known of the dangers posed by concussions and how play according to current rules increased the risk.

As this story gains traction, a huge debate will emerge between football purists who agree that ‘football is not tennis’ and anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in reality—and advocates representing players and the medical community who feel the NFL could, and should have been doing a lot more than it has been.

The pro football purists will think the lawsuits frivolous. It’s football, for crying out loud. Of course Read the rest of this entry »

6 Tips to Avoid a Ponzi Scheme

February 3rd, 2011. By Kristine B

They are two words that no investor wants to hear: Ponzi scheme. As in, your money was invested in a Ponzi scheme. People whose money winds up in a Ponzi scheme often have a lot of difficulty getting their money back, especially if they were among the last to invest. There are ways to watch for Ponzi schemes and avoid them. These tips won’t guarantee that you’ll never invest in a Ponzi scheme, but they’ll at least help to reduce the likelihood of it happening.

What is a Ponzi Scheme?

A Ponzi scheme is an investment scheme in which money from new investors is used to pay out previous (or existing) investors. So, when I invest in the scheme (unknowingly, of course), my money is used to pay the would be “ROI” (return on investment) to the people already invested in the scheme. So, in other words, very little real investing occurs. The Ponzi scheme collapses when one of three things happens: there are not enough new investors to pay out previous investors; when large numbers of previous investors demand to be paid out; or when someone becomes suspicious about where the money is coming from. In recent times, the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme made headlines—and Carr Miller is now facing allegations of a Ponzi scheme as well.

The Downside of Ponzi Schemes

Because the money isn’t really invested as it’s purported to be, the scheme requires new investors to keep it going. But those new investors, if no one else invests after them, won’t get their money back. Their money has either gone to previous investors or has gone to fund a lavish lifestyle on the part of the person in charge of the scheme. Nice, huh? All your hard-earned money just bought some guy a fancy car and a trip to a luxury resort, while you thought it was sitting in honest investments.

Even previous investors who were paid out might not be safe. Why? Because the money they were given was illegally gained. So they might have to give some or all of it back to a trustee who then determines how to split up whatever money remains—if any does.

How to Avoid Ponzi Schemes

1) Don’t invest with someone just because your friends/colleagues/associates do.

There’s no guarantee that they’ve done their homework about an investment. Furthermore, if Read the rest of this entry »

Asbestos News Roundup: 2.3.11

February 3rd, 2011. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of asbestos hot spots from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Galveston, TX: A couple in Texas have named 50 companies as defendants in their asbestos complaint. Michael Ray Cook and his wife allege that his health deteriorated as a result of asbestos exposure while working for the defendants. Among the named defendants in the case are Union Carbide Co., BP Amoco Chemical Co., Marathon Oil Co., Ingersoll-Rand Co. and A.W. Chesterton.

In a lawsuit, Cook claims he came into contact with asbestos and asbestos-containing products and machinery while working as a laborer in various shipyards, steel mills, refineries, paper mills and even military installations across the country.

He alleges he inhaled “great quantities of asbestos fibers” during his assignments, notably those at the Union Carbide facility in Beaumont, the suit says.

Further, the suit states that Cook’s asbestos exposure aboard the U.S. Navy vessels has nothing to do with the theory of negative design, but rather on the theory of failure to warn. (SE Texas Record)

Asbestos Settlements

San Diego, CA: The U.S. Department of Labor has settled with a Navy contractor for $45,000 after finding that NWS Communications wrongfully terminated a whistleblower who worked at naval installments in Coronado and Imperial Beach. NWS was hired by the Navy to perform installation, construction and maintenance of cable and Internet systems.

According to a report in the Coronado Patch, the employee had complained previously to NWS for Read the rest of this entry »

Playboy Class Action: Pretty is Free, Ugly Pays, Men Pay More

February 3rd, 2011. By AbiK

In what might seem like a class action ready-made for Attorney Alfred Rava, a gentleman from California—David Long, Jr. —is suing Playboy. Yes, that Playboy.

Why? Well, back in 2009, he apparently attended Playboy’s 3rd Annual White Party at the Playboy Mansion. And, needless to say, it costs money to attend such VIP-guest-only gatherings. Hey, the keys to the kingdom ain’t free. But here’s the thing—Long says he was charged a fair amount more to gain access to the pleasure palace than women guests attending the same fête were charged. Translation: discrimination.

It gets better. The charges against Playboy state that the cost of entry to the big bash was in direct correlation to how good-looking guests were. “Gorgeous ladies” got in for free or a nominal fee; those unfortunate (ie, less attractive and apparently less apt to make good “arm candy”) gals who were not to be deemed “gorgeous” were only (only!) charged $350 per ticket. Long, however, being in the most unattractive group of all—men—was charged $625.

Yes, this begs the question, if you didn’t like the price, why pay?

I could go off on some feminist rant here (I won’t) but one could argue that as women—”gorgeous women”—are typically objectified in the world of Playboy et al, surely you can’t expect “objects” to cough up cash, right? Only real people have the means to pay. And hey, aren’t the guys attending really going for the women who’ll be there? I don’t think that any guys would cough up any amount for a ticket just to hobnob with Hef. The girls are the draw, plain and simple.

So if you back out any feminist feelings—or even just the argument that, hey, you wanted to attend and you paid so get over it—and you just look at this from a pure segmented marketing perspective, well, I suppose it does sound a bit discriminatory. The White Party as a saleable product was not differentiated in any way—no intentional value added—for the male consumer. Inherent value added? Yes—but intentional so as to make it a different product offering for the guys? No. So seemingly the same product should have the same price tag regardless of who’s consuming it.

So Long seeks damages and he’s looking for the court to prohibit Playboy from setting discriminatory prices ever again. At least he’s not looking for a floppy hat, like Alfred Rava was.