Australia: Kellogg vs Customers
Australia: social network and peer to peer activist group online for parents. Peer to peer support groups are all very well, but what happens when they get organised and take out advertising on TV naming and shaming your company for shenanigans? Parent’s Jury main page (the Fame and Shame awards is a PDF – don’t…
Australia: social network and peer to peer activist group online for parents.Peer to peer support groups are all very well, but what happens when they get organised and take out advertising on TV naming and shaming your company for shenanigans? Parent’s Jury main page (the Fame and Shame awards is a PDF – don’t want to do that to you 🙂 )
Kellogg slams Parents Jury
MELBOURNE: Kellogg has today slammed The Parents Jury as being out of touch after the group of parents branded the marketer a liar.
The Parents Jury named Kellogg’s LCM Zebra Spots bars as the most misleading junk food ad on TV to target children. The ad was awarded the Smoke and Mirrors Award at today’s fourth annual Parents Jury Children’s Food Marketing Fame and Shame Awards.
Nicole Horton, spokeswoman for The Parents Jury, said the awards were a way for parents to fight back.
“We’re naming and shaming food companies for irresponsibly marketing their products to children with a complete disregard for potential health implications,” Horton said. (more from AdNews)
Anyone who has attended my AT WAR WITH YOUR CUSTOMER presentations know these
… are just the first drops before the tidal wave hits. *Grins and grabs a brolly* McDonalds also got smacked and put on the naughty step. The Shame Award for School Food Bully was awarded to Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. Woollies won a ‘nice’ award for being the fresh food people ‘n all.
Still interesting to see some companies (i.e Kelloggs) think that they’re above treating customers with common courtesy, even to the point of branding them liars. I find it incomprehensible.
It is also interesting to see the consumer-driven side of the coin, where there doesn’t seem to be an kind of definite stimulus in a company’s approach (say the non-service of a deaf mother) – rather a consumer-generated ‘evil’ e.g. in the ZeroCoke Movement case.
What was the actual vs. suggested way forward for Coke in their example?
I’m not sure what you mean?
It’s the parents that branded Kellog marketers as liars, not v.v. 😉
Kellogg simply said it was a “dubious award”. Or maybe that was Ad News?
The deaf mum’s case was about not being served by Steak and Shake – her blog post was quite polite pointing out it broke the antiDiscrimination laws. I don’t think she expected the media storm (she posted comments on here a few times).
The Anti Zero Coke Movement was set up by Tim Longhurst because the community was fed up with the ‘guerrilla’ marketing and ‘teaser’ crap that was coming out of coke. I found the statistics – gas emissions from coke delivery trucks, toxicity of coca cola, crime rates around vending machines – factual and revelatory compared to the ‘creative’ marketing rubbish we were being inflicted with.