An Interesting Example of Markets, Information, Responsibility

[mosdef]

While riding the subway home the other day I saw an ad that I think indicates a fairly interesting perspective on consumers. The advertisement read something like:

"Contains polyphenols. That's a good thing."

In order for this to type of advertising to work, the creators of the ad must believe that:

- Consumers will buy something if they think it's healthy.
- They need to be told what healthy and what's not.

I wonder if this is actually true? I suspect it might be - if you took 100 random people and asked them if they thought polypheols were healthy or not healthy I am sure you would get mostly "I don't know"s and a handful of people insisting that they cause cancer and a handful insisting that they stop cancer.

It also makes me wonder what goes through someone's head when they see an ad like that. Do they pick that product the next time they're selecting a beverage because of some vague notion that it's somehow "healthier"? Do they try to figure out what polyphenols are and whether or not they want them?

Also, I find the implicit message in the advertisement disturbing. On the one hand, we have consumers clamoring for protection from "bad" food (see transfat bans) and on the other hand we have suppliers surfacing to fill a need that (apparently) consumers have to be told what's healthy and what's not. Could we possibly have less responsible consumers? Do we really need to be protected by law from bad good and told by other what is good food? Is there anybody out there capable of making evaluations and decisions?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
(apparently) consumers have to be told what's healthy and what's not. Could we possibly have less responsible consumers? Do we really need to be protected by law from bad good and told by other what is good food? Is there anybody out there capable of making evaluations and decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's begin from the logical starting point of your post.

Do polyphenols cause cancer, or are they a good thing? Do you know this with 95% confidence? How many of the first 100 people you ask do you think will know this with 95% confidence?

Should all 100 be expected to know that?

[bobman0330]

I don't get why you find this disturbing. Advertising is there, in part, to inform the consumer of why they should buy your product. "Chock-full of healthy polyphenols" is a perfectly legitimate way to achieve that end. And I don't know about you, but I certainly need someone to explain to me what's healthy and what's not (at least in the realm of polyphenols).

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(apparently) consumers have to be told what's healthy and what's not. Could we possibly have less responsible consumers? Do we really need to be protected by law from bad good and told by other what is good food? Is there anybody out there capable of making evaluations and decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's begin from the logical starting point of your post.

Do polyphenols cause cancer, or are they a good thing? Do you know this with 95% confidence? How many of the first 100 people you ask do you think will know this with 95% confidence?

Should all 100 be expected to know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no expectation regarding the number of people that "should" know that. That would presume that people "should" spend their time on learning about these things. My point had nothing to do with "should" - except that if people feel that they need to know this stuff to make consumer choices, then they should do their own research. The message implicit in the ad is that there is a pool of people who feel they need to know if products are healthy, but that don't fell they need to do research to find what is healthy and what is not. Otherwise, the "That's a good thing." wouldn't be necessary.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(apparently) consumers have to be told what's healthy and what's not. Could we possibly have less responsible consumers? Do we really need to be protected by law from bad good and told by other what is good food? Is there anybody out there capable of making evaluations and decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's begin from the logical starting point of your post.

Do polyphenols cause cancer, or are they a good thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy. Plenty of things can be good in some aspect and still have some potential to "cause" cancer. The ad, as explained, didn't say these things are "healthy" or "cancer fighters", it just said "good".

Further, this particular example is basically irrelevant to the point he's making.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know this with 95% confidence? How many of the first 100 people you ask do you think will know this with 95% confidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does this make?

[ QUOTE ]
Should all 100 be expected to know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Expected by whom?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why you find this disturbing. Advertising is there, in part, to inform the consumer of why they should buy your product. "Chock-full of healthy polyphenols" is a perfectly legitimate way to achieve that end. And I don't know about you, but I certainly need someone to explain to me what's healthy and what's not (at least in the realm of polyphenols).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah - but they don't say "Chock-full of healthy polyphenols" - they condescendingly say "Chock-full of healthy polyphenols - by the way that's a good thing for those of you to lazy to look it up, and we know you're out there". They are clearly targetting a market of uninformed consumers who want to be informed but don't want to do the work to be informed. The fact that this market (apparently - I'm assuming the marketers know what they're doing) exists disturbs me.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no expectation regarding the number of people that "should" know that. That would presume that people "should" spend their time on learning about these things. My point had nothing to do with "should" - except that if people feel that they need to know this stuff to make consumer choices, then they should do their own research. The message implicit in the ad is that there is a pool of people who feel they need to know if products are healthy, but that don't fell they need to do research to find what is healthy and what is not. Otherwise, the "That's a good thing." wouldn't be necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, we can make this a little more specific. Instead of stopping the next 100 people you see, you stop the next X people you see and pick the first 100 that say they are, in fact, concerned about food safety. Of those people, are you arguing that all 100 'should' know what polyphenols are and their likely effects?

[Jamougha]

The amount of research required to know about these topics is way beyond most people. sux but it's true.

This is why I oppose DTC marketing for pharmaceuticals. People are not remotely well enough informed to make accurate decisions.

[Money2Burn]

Jerry Seinfeld has a comedy bit about this.

"Now with 20% more retzin!"

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no expectation regarding the number of people that "should" know that. That would presume that people "should" spend their time on learning about these things. My point had nothing to do with "should" - except that if people feel that they need to know this stuff to make consumer choices, then they should do their own research. The message implicit in the ad is that there is a pool of people who feel they need to know if products are healthy, but that don't fell they need to do research to find what is healthy and what is not. Otherwise, the "That's a good thing." wouldn't be necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, we can make this a little more specific. Instead of stopping the next 100 people you see, you stop the next X people you see and pick the first 100 that say they are, in fact, concerned about food safety. Of those people, are you arguing that all 100 'should' know what polyphenols are and their likely effects?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even then, I would expect that each of them will have their own personal preferences for how important food safety is to them, and how important time and money is to them, and for them to make their own decisions regarding the amount of time and money allocated to learning about food safety. What I find disturbing is that (apparently) consumers are so concerned about food quality that they MUST have food with no transfats at all costs (borne by others, in fact) and when it comes to the potentially beneficial properties of their food an advertisers education via sloganeering is required.