Airborne will pay $23.3 million to settle a class action lawsuit wherein the herbal supplement company was accused of false advertising. You've probaby heard of Airborne. You may have even tried it. I have. Did it work? I don't think it stopped my cold from coming, but Airborne's original advertising messages led consumers to believe it would. When it didn't (surprise), those customers sued.
What do we think of this as marketers? Certainly, the original messages seem to imply that Airborne would fight off colds or stop colds from attacking. Obviously, that wasn't the case. As a copywriter, I always tell clients that stretching the truth is not a good idea. Be honest in your advertising and marketing, and customers will appreciate your candor and learn to trust you.
Still, stretching the truth seems to lead to a quicker (and bigger) revenue boost and in this world of instant gratification that stretches to every board room and stockholder meeting around the world, it's hard to be patient and develop a strong marketing campaign that will build upon itself and work in the long term.
Well, another company is learning that the ramifications of stretching the truth are much more painful than using patience would have been years ago. Will this example change the way marketers and advertisers are expected to work in terms of creating short-term profits? Of course not, but it would be nice if it did.
What do you think?
Comment Preview