Soymilk: Not a negative PR issue for Target
- 19 Comment
AdWeek released an article today regarding Target’s recent accusation of false advertising for allegedly wrongly promoting ‘organic’ soymilk. Target is being targeted (pun intended) by The Cornucopia Institute, “alleging that Target was misleading consumers in its national newspaper advertisements for Silk.” (Target is also accused of wrongly promoting certain Archer Farms products as organic.)
As a consumer I first wanted to know if Silk promotes themselves as organic. On the Silk Web site they say, “Nature’s Perfect Protein. 100% Whole Harvested.” To me, this implies organic without saying it. Healthy doesn’t equal organic, but can see how it’s easy to confuse. Looks like they need to clarify.
So, is this a Dean Foods issue or a Target issue? Michael Foley, former journalist and digital PR strategist at Waggener Edstrom says, “it doesn’t matter. Target should move to protect its customers and do the right thing.”
Assuming this is not a recurring trend (i.e. Target is not knowingly and wrongly promoting organic items), I think Target should apologize for the oversight, correct the information, pay any applicable fine(s) and move on. If this is not intentional and an ongoing pattern, this will not be a large negative PR campaign for the Target brand.
Or, in the words of Peter Shankman,
Peter Shankman, CEO, HARO
19 Comments on this post
Trackbacks
-
foleymo said:
Great post. I totally agree. Even though it’s not Target’s fault, they still need to acknowledge it, apologize for it and make it right for their customers. That’s just good business and the right thing to do.
Now we just need to keep watching and make sure they don’t accidentally use the same old image in future advertisements.
And, speaking of typos, my name is spelled Micheal, not Michael.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm -
Sytropin said:
Yup, you make some excellent points. I don’t think Target will have much of a problem recouping from this ordeal if they just apologize. I personally thought Silk was organic myself.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm -
Laptop Briefcases said:
Yes this is definitely more of a problem for Silk than it is for Target. Silk basically implies that their product is organic which may have even mislead Target employees. Still Target should accept some responsibility and vow to better protect their consumers.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm -
PSP Go said:
A fine example of the marketers use language to mislead people.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:07 pm -
cizgi film izle said:
Thanks for shared
November 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am -
izle said:
Great post. I totally agree. Even though it’s not Target’s fault, they still need to acknowledge it, apologize for it and make it right for their customers. That’s just good business and the right thing to do.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm -
Film said:
Thank you man
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm -
Aluminum Laptop Cases said:
This goes to show that more regulations are required for labeling products as organic or environmentally friendly. Too many companies throw around those words with little to back it up.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:36 pm -
Saglik Sayfasi said:
I don’t think Target will have much of a problem recouping from this ordeal if they just apologize.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:58 am -
Pes 2010 Patch said:
nice post. i totaly agree.thanks.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:54 am -
printing said:
People like to blame NAFTA for the loss of a manufacturing base in the US. But the only reason we lost those jobs is because we were incredibly uncompetitive, which ultimately hurts the consumer.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:16 am -
cashback credit cards said:
I would lean to put blame and pressure on Dean Foods. In my opinion I believe it’s there fault and misleading or guiding information. Though Target did put it out there…I believe it falls back on the brand personally.
Interesting article that really makes you think what your putting out there really does matter to every single customer you have.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:51 pm -
blue cross tonik said:
A fine example of the marketers use language to mislead people.
December 24th, 2009 at 6:27 am -
Net Age Web Design said:
The thing with organic is that if the producer doesn’t claim the word, along with a certification authorities stamp and number on the packaging, all the “healthy”, “natural” and “wholesome” benefits being claimed is unverifiable and auditable, meaning you’re being ripped off. Organic producers go to great lengths to have their farms and operations certified, hence their copyright to the word.
January 5th, 2010 at 10:22 am -
Catering said:
We often seen marketing people using such mislead language to gain business which is very bad.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:56 am -
calivita said:
what a pr problem pr pr whay dou want to pr
January 10th, 2010 at 1:39 pm -
Generic online said:
A most fine example of the marketers use language to mislead people.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:25 pm -
Turkey said:
Soymilk, hehehe. Nice sharing.
March 5th, 2010 at 2:27 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sarah Evans, thomas clifford and Sam Brace, Allison McKenna. Allison McKenna said: RT @PRsarahevans Soymilk: Not a negative PR issue for Target http://bit.ly/3hnQbm [...]