Coke was unlucky with the ACCC
Coca Cola’s “setting the record straight” advertisements started running in the newspapers this weekend, but one of the most important points of this debacle has been lost.
And that’s the fact that the intervention of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has dramatically undermined self-regulation.
And actually, I’m really not sure that Coca Cola has done much that could be pointed to as bad marketing.
Back in October, they ran some ads, taking on some “myths”, including putting its side of the health debate on caffeine content and whether the drink can make you fat.
I must admit, to me, it looked like a smart move at the time – even if the use of Kerry Armstrong as the spokesman was a bit twee. Surely, tackling issues where they arise is good practice for any high profile brand.
Naturally, being Coca Cola, it drew the ire of the anti junk food lobby, who very quickly took against it.
The Advertising Standards Bureau – which is effectively a self-regulated body – took a look, and decided it was fair enough.
That seemed to me to be the right decision. To me, this was nothing more than Coca Cola putting its side of the case and selecting the facts that best supported its argument. That’s what you do in a debate. It was clearly labelled as an advertisement, designed to balance criticism put by Coke’s opponents.
But then the ACCC got involved, and from that moment, Coke was screwed. Even if Coca Cola had been reasonably certain of winning any court battle, if the ACCC had gone through with a legal case, the publicity for Coke would have been hugely damaging.
So they settled, agreeing to make the corrective advertisements.
Sadly it means the next brand that’s an easy target will be less likely to join the debate. It’s another win for the anti lobby.
As it happens, I don’t think the damage for Coke as a brand will be lasting. After all, the dominant image in the corrective ads is a giant great Coca-Cola bottle.
For Kerry Armstrong, it’s a diffrent matter though. It’s a great lesson for celebrities – and their agents – that when you lent your name to something, it is not a risk-free process. You still need to do due diligence. She may have got a reported $70,000 for appearing in the ads, but her pesonal image is now tainted enough that other brands may be wary of using her.
But the ACCC intervention is the significant thing. It’s time to stop pretending that advertising is still self-regulated.
(Update: Julian Lee wrote an interesting piece on the same subject in the SMH over the weekend, which takes a slightly different point of view.)
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
Poor, poor Coca Cola. Being picked on by the big bad ACCC, when all they are trying to do is get the mums to understand that their product is in fact not detrimental to their children’s health.
Bullshit.
Self regulation failed, the ACCC stepped in to ensure some truth in advertising. If self regulation had worked, the ACCC would not have needed to step in. Instead of bemoaning the fact that there had to be intervention, why not question the failure of the industry to self regulate.
Your argument is very similar to the arguments put up by the tobacco industry when they were defending their right to put up their side of the story.
Let me guess Tim, what is your soft drink of choice?
User ID not verified.
Pepsi Max as it happens, James.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Strategically this was a really foolish campaign. These myths about Coke have been around forever. Why highlight them with a campaign of obvious lies? It’s extremely stupid.
Here’s the process:
1. Remind people that coke is bad for them.
2. Highlight the fact that coke is contributing to an obesity epidemic.
3. Try to reassure people with some very unconvincing arguments that their kids aren’t fat.
4. Suffer the embarrassment of having to publicly apologise for lying to the public about a topic that we raised ourselves.
5. Back to square one but now your myths are facts in the public’s mind.
This is not the result of being unlucky this is the result of some extremely foolish marketing. A future marketing 101 case study of what not to do if ever I’ve seen one.
User ID not verified.
A & W Root beer …should be the drink of choice.
Coca Cola wins most arrogant marketing team award (very hard award to win)
User ID not verified.
Dr Mumbo/Tim, I think you are wrong. Ad Standards Bureau decision back in October was truly lamentable. As for a debate Tim… it’s not a debate that the public is involved in. Canny ads using Kerry Armstrong as your Trojan Horse to debunk myths is not debating the issues… it is putting out more lies.
No. Maccas set the record straight when it came to debunking some real myths, Coke tried that same strategy but its ads failed the real test – they were just not true. Yes it will make the anti lobby stronger and for that Coke and the ASB should be given a good hiding. That is both the fault of the system and the advertiser – in this case Coke – who sought to exploit a self -regulatory system that has a very good record on compliance.
Julian
User ID not verified.
The ACCC decision hasn’t undermined self regulation at all, sorry Tim but you’re comparing apples with oranges.
The two decisions are entirely different because they were based and made on differing standards and requirements.
The ASB said the ads were “truthful and honest” but that doesn’t answer the question of whether they were ‘likely to mislead’ – which is a totally different question all together.
Below quotes from news.com.au: http://tinyurl.com/ca33f6
“The chief executive of the Advertising Standards Bureau Fiona Jolly said the ACCC decision looked at actual legislation, which its board did not use.”
“Our codes are based on community standards and have different requirements to the ACCC legislation,”
“(The ACCC) looks at whether ads are likely to be misleading. So it’s a stricter test.”
“Our board aren’t legal experts, they’re members of the community who have to look at the ad and the code and say ‘do we think the community would find this ad actually misleading.”
—————
There’s very little in this except that the ACCC took the ‘what does the law say about this’ route and the ASB based their decision on a different set of standards.
Both org’s did their job, they’re just looking at it from different angles.
User ID not verified.
By the way, Julian wrote a good piece on this in Saturday’s SMH. Julian, I couldn’t spot it on your online archive. If I’ve overlooked it, please flick me the link and I’ll add it to the end of the story. (now done)
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
User ID not verified.
Tim, I am interested to know, do you still have the same opinion?
User ID not verified.
Hi Peter,
Broadly, I do. One caveat I should have added was that clearly they were stupid not to get their numbers right on the caffeine point.
But strategically, it’s a good thing when brands come out and put their side pf a debate – and when they do it through advertising, they are doing it transparently.
There is so much genuinely cynical advertising verging on the criminal out there – misleading price promotions, untruths about product attributes, and of course most mobile services.
Yet the most notorious ad of the year so far is for Coke?
User ID not verified.
It’s a battle out there in consumerland Tim – perhaps the theory is to take out the general and hope the army retreats.
You are spot on about the mobile services.
User ID not verified.
I too think you are so wrong on this Tim. Those ads tried to make Coke look less harmful than it is and they were caught out lying. Shame on Coke and Kerry Armstrong.
User ID not verified.
Colour me “surprised”. When one sees the nonsense promoted in a nightly cavalcade of mobile phone text and video ads, from competitions to match-making to soft-porn, it’s difficult to believe there is anyone policing the Australian advertising industry.
User ID not verified.
“More Doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette”, slogan used by Camel in one of their 1950s ad campaigns, I suppose they were using their side to enter the debate on why to buy their cigarettes and the self regulation bodies deemed it appropriate…..looking at it now would you agree?
Hindsight, a comb given to you when you’re bald.
Think about it.
User ID not verified.