August 21, 2008
FTC Fines Airborne $30 Mil for False Ad Claims
There are consumers all across the U.S. who swear by the popular cough/cold product Airborne. Despite its popularity, the company has been hit with a $30 million fine by the Federal Trade Commission for claiming Airborne can help reduce the length of a common cold.
Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement, “There is no credible evidence that Airborne products, taken as directed, will reduce the severity or duration of colds, or provide any tangible benefit for people who are exposed to germs in crowded places.”
A piece on the Drug Store News website pointed out that Airborne is unlike brands such as Mattrix’s Zicam or Quigley’s Cold-Eeze, that contain zinc gluconate, which has been demonstrated to reduce the length of time that people suffer from a cold.
Airborne’s Original Effervescent Formula is marketed as a dietary supplement containing vitamins A, C, E, zinc, and selenium.
Discussion Questions: Will the Airborne brand’s settlement with the Federal Trade Commission have an impact on the product’s sales? Will the settlement affect how retailers approach the promotion and merchandising of the Airborne brand?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Sadly it will have a negative impact on sales. $30 million seems a heavy fine for not being able to substantiate the claim. The product does not contain harmful ingredients and is not worsening people’s lives. Yes, they should remove the claim but, is this such a big issue?
Early last year I and several of my colleagues were suffering from and sharing a string of cold/flu symptoms. One afternoon I realized I had to leave work early and medicate myself. At this point a co-worker offered me an Airborne. I was skeptical that it would help but had nothing to lose. In less than an hour I felt noticeably better and resumed my workday. Several co-workers then experienced similar results despite pretty rough, long-standing symptoms.
Months later I was visiting a third world country. I was told that the father of a friend had been experiencing severe flu-like symptoms for weeks. Doctors were at a loss as to a solution and his family was worried. I gave the man a tin of Airborne. When I returned to visit ten days later he was fine.
Maybe this is all a result of positive thinking. I can assure you that my friend’s family, my colleagues and I were all skeptical at first.
Lately, the continuing fallout from the sub-prime crisis has brought about many calls for increased government regulation of business. This may be long overdue. However, after the overturning of the FCC’s giant fine for CBS Superbowl coverage of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction and the hazy FTC claim against Airborne, it seems the government may be the party deserving the fine.
It is about time that the FTC steps up to the plate to stop these obviously false claims. This company has been profiting from this type of false advertising for years. The consumers have been spending their monies based upon a promise that is clearly untrue. Airborne knew this when they started to advertise their products in this manner, and these are the consequences of this type of blatantly false claims.
If consumers feel that they can prevent or relieve colds by using Airborne, they will continue to use it. Science has shown that a positive attitude helps in recovery from illness. It will be interesting to see if people don’t feel positive about Airborne now that the FTC has shown that the emperor has no clothes.
Everything here is conjecture and in my opinion, is only based on doing a lot of flying and over the last 3 years exposed to people who swear by Airborne. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE IT UP.
This will not hurt sales. It may slow down growth but won’t really have an adverse impact.
I think that is a very large fine for a small company. Where will that money go? Not to people who claim the product didn’t work. Just another big government move that will hurt small business. I could understand if the product was harmful, but it is not. There are a lot of people who believe the product does work. How does a $30 million fine not effect sales? This size of a fine will have an impact on their advertising budget and that will hurt sales. Hopefully it will not result in lost jobs.
Unfortunately, this will probably affect sales. Recovering from any ailment is often 90% mental and if consumers don’t believe the product will work, then it won’t. In high school my track coach gave me this large super energy pill a half hour before a race. I cut 30 seconds off my 2 mile time. Turns out the pill just just a large vitamin C tablet. It was all in my head.
Late night television is full of advertisements for supplements that promise amazing things. Of course they don’t work but as long as they are safe, what’s the harm in giving someone some encouragement? These products are not selling a cure, they are selling a dream. Today, consumers are smart enough to check out products on the internet to see if they really work. It’s “buyer beware.” The FTC has bigger fish to fry and should move on.
Retailers will sell what consumers want to buy. In terms of how the settlement impacts consumer sales, I don’t predict that the impact will be overly significant one way or the other. My opinion is that consumers that take vitamins, nutrients, supplements, etc, seem to have awareness that the benefits are at best arguable in the medical world.
There are so many “nutraceuticals” and dietary sexual improvement products and other pseudomedications on America’s shelves, pushed on cable TV and the internet. It’s kind of surprising that the Federal government picked on one particular product with a significant fine. It seems like only a small minority of these marketers ever get fined and the fine amounts usually seem like minor nuisances.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
Sadly it will have a negative impact on sales. $30 million seems a heavy fine for not being able to substantiate the claim. The product does not contain harmful ingredients and is not worsening people’s lives. Yes, they should remove the claim but, is this such a big issue?
Early last year I and several of my colleagues were suffering from and sharing a string of cold/flu symptoms. One afternoon I realized I had to leave work early and medicate myself. At this point a co-worker offered me an Airborne. I was skeptical that it would help but had nothing to lose. In less than an hour I felt noticeably better and resumed my workday. Several co-workers then experienced similar results despite pretty rough, long-standing symptoms.
Months later I was visiting a third world country. I was told that the father of a friend had been experiencing severe flu-like symptoms for weeks. Doctors were at a loss as to a solution and his family was worried. I gave the man a tin of Airborne. When I returned to visit ten days later he was fine.
Maybe this is all a result of positive thinking. I can assure you that my friend’s family, my colleagues and I were all skeptical at first.
Lately, the continuing fallout from the sub-prime crisis has brought about many calls for increased government regulation of business. This may be long overdue. However, after the overturning of the FCC’s giant fine for CBS Superbowl coverage of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction and the hazy FTC claim against Airborne, it seems the government may be the party deserving the fine.
It is about time that the FTC steps up to the plate to stop these obviously false claims. This company has been profiting from this type of false advertising for years. The consumers have been spending their monies based upon a promise that is clearly untrue. Airborne knew this when they started to advertise their products in this manner, and these are the consequences of this type of blatantly false claims.
If consumers feel that they can prevent or relieve colds by using Airborne, they will continue to use it. Science has shown that a positive attitude helps in recovery from illness. It will be interesting to see if people don’t feel positive about Airborne now that the FTC has shown that the emperor has no clothes.
Everything here is conjecture and in my opinion, is only based on doing a lot of flying and over the last 3 years exposed to people who swear by Airborne. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE IT UP.
This will not hurt sales. It may slow down growth but won’t really have an adverse impact.
I think that is a very large fine for a small company. Where will that money go? Not to people who claim the product didn’t work. Just another big government move that will hurt small business. I could understand if the product was harmful, but it is not. There are a lot of people who believe the product does work. How does a $30 million fine not effect sales? This size of a fine will have an impact on their advertising budget and that will hurt sales. Hopefully it will not result in lost jobs.
Unfortunately, this will probably affect sales. Recovering from any ailment is often 90% mental and if consumers don’t believe the product will work, then it won’t. In high school my track coach gave me this large super energy pill a half hour before a race. I cut 30 seconds off my 2 mile time. Turns out the pill just just a large vitamin C tablet. It was all in my head.
Late night television is full of advertisements for supplements that promise amazing things. Of course they don’t work but as long as they are safe, what’s the harm in giving someone some encouragement? These products are not selling a cure, they are selling a dream. Today, consumers are smart enough to check out products on the internet to see if they really work. It’s “buyer beware.” The FTC has bigger fish to fry and should move on.
Retailers will sell what consumers want to buy. In terms of how the settlement impacts consumer sales, I don’t predict that the impact will be overly significant one way or the other. My opinion is that consumers that take vitamins, nutrients, supplements, etc, seem to have awareness that the benefits are at best arguable in the medical world.
There are so many “nutraceuticals” and dietary sexual improvement products and other pseudomedications on America’s shelves, pushed on cable TV and the internet. It’s kind of surprising that the Federal government picked on one particular product with a significant fine. It seems like only a small minority of these marketers ever get fined and the fine amounts usually seem like minor nuisances.