Saturday, October 3, 2009

Will Made-in-the-USA Boast Work for Florida's Natural?

Juice Brand Takes on Tropicana, Simply Orange With 'Read the Label' Campaign
NEW YORK ( -- While many marketers have issued a "made in America" call to action to rouse consumers into buying their goods, those efforts have historically failed to move the sales needle. But Florida's Natural is betting shoppers do care about domestic origins when it comes to orange juice.

Florida's Natural print adThe brand is pouring its entire fourth-quarter ad budget, which last year accounted for almost half of its annual marketing spending, into a campaign that focuses on a "Read the Label" message, taking bigger brands such as Simply Orange and Tropicana to task for importing juice from Brazil. Florida's Natural is produced by a co-op of citrus growers in Florida.

Print ads highlight the small print on PepsiCo's Tropicana and Coca-Cola's Simply Orange packages and say, "If we imported orange juice, we'd make the type as small as possible too." Those ads are running in People magazine, while online buys include Yahoo and AOL.

TV spots take a similar approach to the fine print, saying, "There's something your orange juice isn't telling you, at least not where you're likely to see it." The TV ad buys are running through December and include Animal Planet, Bravo, Food Network, Hallmark, Oxygen and TLC, among others.

As a part of the effort, packages of Florida's Natural have also been stamped with a new graphic that reads "Product of USA."

Last year Florida's Natural spent only $5 million on measured media, according to TNS Media Intelligence, though that was off significantly from 2007 when the company spent $21 million. The brand's creative agency is 22squared.

Beverage experts say it's unlikely the campaign will make a significant dent in market share against leaders Tropicana and Simply Orange, though the approach does provide Florida's Natural with a point of differentiation in a competitive category. "Maybe three, four, five years down the line, if they continue to build on this, it may be a way to gain share," said Joe Pawlak, VP at Technomic. "But, in the short term, they'll see minimal gains."
Executives from Florida's Natural declined to comment.

Experts in the category expect the pro-U.S. campaign will sway few consumers. Like plenty of U.S.-based manufacturers before it, Florida's Natural is likely to find that consumers are disinterested in that particular facet of the debate. But the recession, to some degree, may have revived an interest among certain consumers in supporting U.S. businesses.

"This is a campaign that will resonate with some consumers but not all," said Gary Hemphill, managing director-chief operating officer at Beverage Marketing Corp. "There is a belief that as the economy has sputtered, more consumers will see buying American as the right thing to do in an effort to help boost the domestic economy." 

Bayer Sued Over Cancer Claims

Oct 1, 2009

Bayer’s recent ad claims have become a headache for the German drug company. The Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a lawsuit yesterday (Sept. 30) against Bayer regarding ad claims for its Men’s One A Day multivitamin. The product states that because it has selenium, it might reduce the risk of prostate cancer, which CSPI said has been proven false.

The nonprofit health advocacy group said it reached out to Bayer in June, asking it to alter its marketing materials following the results of an eight-month clinical trial that showed that selenium does not prevent prostate cancer. It also showed selenium may actually have harmful affects such as an increased risk of diabetes. CSPI added that Bayer threatened to sue for libel after the group spotlighted the alleged flaws in Bayer's claims.

"Bayer has been giving American men false hope about selenium in One A Day multivitamins," said CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson in a statement. "Bayer continued to run deceptive ads even after [the trial study] Select found selenium supplements weren't helping and might even be hurting."

Bayer HealthCare rep Eveline Martin said the company had been made aware of a lawsuit via CSPI's statement today, but had not yet been served or reviewed the suit.

Regarding the claims, she said, "Bayer based a portion of the promotion for One A Day Men's Formula on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's permitted qualified health claim that 'Selenium may reduce the risk of certain cancers.' The main support for FDA's permitted use of the claim was the data relating to prostate cancer. As part of our routine and regular processes, Bayer monitors developments in available science, as well as regulatory pronouncements relevant to the company's products and promotional claims."

She noted that the FDA changed its permitted qualified health claim earlier this year and as a result Bayer is in the process of revising the packaging and promotional materials for its One A Day Men's and One A Day Men's 50+ to exclude reference to the qualified health claim regarding the relationship between selenium intake to the reduced risk of certain cancers. 

Kraft Explains Its Decision to Charge for Its IPhone App

Five Questions With Director-Innovation Ed Kaczmarek

NEW YORK ( -- To charge or not to charge. That's the question many marketers and media companies building mobile apps are asking themselves. Kraft, which has arguably been one of the more successful
PLAY VIDEO: Brief demonstration of Kraft's iFood app.
marketers in the iPhone App Store, charges 99 cents for its iFood Assistant.

Last week at the Ad Age and Appolicious Apps for Brands conference, we caught up with Ed Kaczmarek, director of innovation-new services at Kraft Foods, to ask how the markketer came up with the decision to charge -- and why this iPhone app is so important for Kraft and its future business model.
Ad Age: What was your thought process around whether to charge for your app?
Mr. Kaczmarek: We look at iFood Assistant as a natural evolution from product to service. We look at it as providing the consumer with a service that's of value, and we feel the 99 cent price, which is the same as a song, is a minimal cost, but it also signifies the content is more premium. We do have content on iFood Assistant that isn't available on free platforms, and we're also pulling it into the application in an easier, more delicious way. It also means a person can take their recipe box and shopping list with them -- the same one they save on their desktop.

I think it's important that the whole evolution of free and paid is also testing and learning. As we set out, it's very difficult to go from free to paid, but if it doesn't work, you can always go from paid to free. But we've found it does work. We feel good that we're giving an extremely good value to the consumer. And I think our results are proving that.
Ad Age: You view the App Store as a platform that you can use to sell other services as well. Tell me about that.

Mr. Kaczmarek: I think in-app commerce has a lot of promise. Kraft is in the process of developing new services that we'll eventually offer to consumers, and we look at iFood Assistant as a platform where we can not only introduce those new services but have consumers purchase them.
Ad Age: And if you're a free app, you can't exactly do that -- right?
Mr. Kaczmarek: A free app currently does not allow in-app commerce. And I think that factor just reinforces [that] we made the right decision, even though there are definitely skeptics. But any time you jump ahead of the curve, there will always be people who disagree with it.
Ad Age: You also promote Kraft products in your app. Have you gotten backlash from users who say "We paid for this -- I don't want to see an ad in it"?
Mr. Kaczmarek: I think you're always going to see that. If you go through the App Store comments, which are available on iTunes, there are definitely some consumers, though not a lot, who make the comment that "If I'm paying 99 cents I want a free app." But there are also consumers that will defend you. One consumer wrote in a comment, "Oh stop it -- the app is from Kraft, it's worth well more than 99 cents." So I think you have your yin and yang, where some consumers will keep others honest and say, "Hey, this is a great value for 99 cents," and we feel really good about that.
Ad Age: You have talked about where you are now and where you want to get to. Tell me about that.
Mr. Kaczmarek: Our goal is to continually jump ahead of the curve. We're testing and learning so when smartphone adoption triples, we will have evolved iFood Assistant to the point where it will truly be indispensable. With innovation we try to stay two or three years out, but the adoption of the iPhone is quickening the pace at which consumers adopt this kind of content. It's a mini computer, and it's so dynamic. And it allows us to put delicious at your fingertips.