Lost Innocence?
Posted in General, Advertising, Marketing, Oliver Milman, Latest reporters' blogs October 3rd, 2007 by Oliver Milman
Does the latest blow to the Innocent brand – which has seen the ASA slam its healthy credentials – prove that you can have a product that is almost too perfect for its own good?
Today’s ruling by the ad watchdog, which attacked ‘Innocent’ claims that its smoothies have a “detoxifying” effect, will provide critics of the brand further ammunition with which to gun down its cosy, chummy image.
Innocent will look back at 2007 with mixed feelings – the brand continues to dominate the UK smoothie market it helped create, but in marketing terms it has all gone a bit sour.
The much-criticised link-up with McDonald’s, which has seen smoothies placed in Happy Meals, is continuing on a trial basis with a national roll-out planned for next year, despite Innocent sources admitting that its customers are “about 60-40 against the whole idea.”
Getting into bed with a multinational purveyor of burgers has placed scrutiny upon the ethical badge that innocent proudly wears. The brand’s summer ‘village fete’, a replacement for the successful but overcrowded Fruitstock, was sniped at for attracting a raft of high-profile sponsors.
There have also been grumbles over the size of the vast Innocent range and its aggressive expansionist policy in Europe. How long before Innocent is viewed like any other mass-market drink out there?
Innocent’s woes are a warning shot to any brand attempting to jump on the green and ethical bandwagon, which it pioneered. While there’s little doubt that the smoothie maker has honourable intentions, it has set itself up for a fall from day one.
Anything that isn’t perfectly done will rebound badly upon the brand – and getting cosy with McDonald’s, becoming increasingly commercial and making false claims about ingredients certainly falls into that category. So, where does Innocent go from here to regain, well, its innocence? Or is it too late?
To read the news story related to this blog, go to mad.co.uk
(1)
(0)
Tags 
(1)
JunkkMale’s comment is....
I think all it does is show how size can create all sorts of problems.
It is hard to imagine that in leaner times those running the show would not be on top of such things. But now there will be layer upon layer of departmental munchkins (just try getting past the bananaphone to talk to a sensible decision maker without getting all sorts of folk running turf interference these days) jockeying to make their mark, so such things creep in.
As to the McDonalds hook up… what is the problem? Surely getting something healthy…ier in there is better than nothing? And if one is of a campaigning bent, better to work from within than standing outside shouting all or nothing impracticalities. And who, beyond the media, are these excitable folk who can get so turned off by such commercial decisions? I felt the same way over the hoo-haa that Anita Roddick had flogged off Body Shop. It was hers to do with as she felt. And if feeling generous (if change was her aim) was the risk of comprising the Body Shop brand not worth elevated the aspirations of the parent ?
Mind you, it can create some fun. I suspect those who bought out Ben & Jerry’s haven’t a clue what is going on sometimes: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/10/competition-ben-jerrys-climate-chnage.html
Posted October 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Your comment is....
You must be logged in to post a comment.
madcomments encourages comments to be short and to the point. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.
- Advertising (212)
- Arif Durrani (51)
- Branwell Johnson (127)
- Creative (58)
- Design (13)
- Digital (100)
- Direct Marketing (15)
- General (137)
- Jim Prior (2)
- Latest reporters’ blogs (391)
- Lucy Tesseras (15)
- Marketing (225)
- Media (230)
- Mel Varley (108)
- Nikki Preston (47)
- Oliver Milman (43)
- Russell Parsons (32)
- Stuart Aitken (1)
