The image above turned up today on Ads Of The World. Created by agency Phibious, in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, it's a sexed-up — but mostly harmless — transformation of the brand into bikinis.
Within an hour of posting, AOTW's Ivan Raszl pointed out that there was already a parody version going around:
Posted on Facebook by Carlos Ríos, the caption reads "a real Coca-Cola's summer model, shall be like."
This is a common reaction to "junk food" advertising, familiar to readers of Adbusters:
Do you see the problem? Yes, soft drinks and fast food are fattening. But do we need to make fun of people's bodies to make this point?
It's another example how conflicting priorities and sensitivities make social media complicated. People who are against the corporate food industry want to make a statement about promoting unhealthy consumption, but in doing so they cross a line into "body shaming" that's hurtful to people other than their intended targets of derision.
There it is, in all its oddly-centred, fake-ad-looking headline glory.
I'll quote the body copy in full:
For over 127 years, people have been coming together over Coca-Cola products to refresh, to celebrate, and to enjoy a moment with something they love. One reason why is that people have always been able to trust the quality of our products and everything that goes into them.
That’s something that will never change.
But changing with the times and people’s tastes is something we’ve always done. Today, that means offering more great-tasting, low- and no-calorie choices. And while nearly everyone can agree that providing choices to help people manage the calories they take in is a good thing, we understand that some people have questions about the use of low- and no-calorie sweeteners.
Our use of high-quality, low- and no-calorie sweeteners, including aspartame, allows us to give people great-tasting options they can feel good about. Time and again, these low- and no-calorie sweeteners have shown to be safe, high-quality alternatives to sugar. In fact, the safety of aspartame is supported by more than 200 studies over the last 40 years.*
Today, we’re proud to offer a wide range of Coca-Cola products that fit different people’s life- styles. Because we believe that when people come together with more choices that are right for them, good things happen.
For more information, including third-party studies on the benefits and safety of low- and no-calorie sweeteners, go to beverageinstitute.org
*International Food Information Council Foundation. 2011. Everything You Need to Know About Aspartame. Magnuson, B.A., et al. 2007. Aspartame: A safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies. Crit Rev Toxicol. 37: 629_727. Aspartame is safe for use by nearly all populations. The only exception is people born with phenylketonuria (PKU) who cannot metabolize phenylalanine. But, this does not mean aspartame is unsafe for other consumers.
Ad Age says the campaign will run in USA Today in Atlanta, the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Chicago Tribune. Then again, media buys are just proof it's a real ad. Many more people will see it online.
Ad Age also quotes a Coke news release:
"We believe there is a real opportunity to bring people together to educate them about low- and no- calorie sweeteners. Low- and no-calorie sweeteners offer a great way for people to manage their calories while still enjoying the sweet taste that they love. We understand, though, that some people have questions about these ingredients, especially aspartame. We felt it was important for us to answer these questions and reinforce that these are ingredients people can feel good about."
I'll try not to write anything I could get sued for. I'll just say that, as a parent, I do not believe "diet" soft drinks are a healthy choice for me or for my son, and we will not have them in our house. We promote drinking water as the #1 thirst quencher for him, followed by milk and limited fruit juice. We even allow the occasional sweetened "pop" in the house, but prefer real sugar over corn syrup. That's just us.
Intuitively, people choose non-caloric artificial sweeteners over sugar to lose or maintain weight. Sugar provides a large amount of rapidly absorbable carbohydrates, leading to excessive energy intake, weight gain, and metabolic syndrome. Sugar and other caloric sweeteners such as high fructose corn syrup have been cast as the main culprits of the obesity epidemic. Whether due to a successful marketing effort on the part of the diet beverage industry or not, the weight conscious public often consider artificial sweeteners “health food”. But do artificial sweeteners actually help reduce weight?
Surprisingly, epidemiologic data suggest the contrary. Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain.
They didn't claim is was good for you. They just said it was "safe" and that you can "feel good about it". If you want a better look at their arguments and sources, there's a handy infographic at their advocacy site.
As a parting thought, however, I wonder if drawing attention to the issue is going to backfire.
Adland put me on to a New Orleans blog called NOLAFemmes, in which Coca-Cola is accused of defacing the city's Historic French Quarter and Faubourg Tremé with illegally stencilled road ads.
Blogger Lunanola writes:
"It is my opinion that the City of New Orleans is being pimped out promoted at an unprecedented level (to a degree that gives rise to what could be described as “neighborhood fatigue”). Such heavy promotion rarely occurs without unintended consequences: for example, illegal, ugly, and damaging guerrilla marketing campaigns. This kind of defacement is unconscionable and must be addressed immediately...
Stated simply, the most significant difference between historic beauty and hazardous decay is cumulative, uninterrupted neglect. The continued degradation of the historic heart of New Orleans cannot remain unaddressed, particularly if one considers that our amazing city will be in an ever-increasing spotlight while hosting the 2013 Super Bowl and celebrating its 300th Anniversary in 2018."
"It doesn't take much effort to realize why the woman would be upset. But I'll just go ahead and add more reasons to the list. Like: the lines suck. There is no idea here. And the advertising is a complete wank fest.
If law-breaking is involved don't you think it would be worth the effort to, oh, I don't know, do something creative and smart and even conceptually relevant to the media 'buy?'"
I would just add that they should leave the outlaw marketing to real activists, and go back to exploiting polar bears and Santa Claus.
As #2, Pepsi has a history of implying that Coke truck drivers, etc., would switch to Pepsi if they could. But is this shot at Coke's most famous imaginary icon warranted?
The following is not a deleted scene from Idiocracy.
PepsiCo has filed a false advertising suit against Coca-Cola Co. over the number of electrolytes in their respective sports drinks.
Check out the claims on the POWERADE site. (And turn your speakers down.)
What's funny is what the legal argument says about the industry in general:
PepsiCo unit Stokely-Van Camp Inc., the maker of Gatorade, alleges the ads falsely claim that Powerade Ion4 sports drink is "the complete sports drink" and Gatorade is "missing two electrolytes" and "incomplete." The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
"There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that Powerade Ion functions better than Gatorade as a sports drink," the lawsuit said. "There is no evidence that Powerade Ion will help consumers achieve better hydration, have more energy or get nutrients that will result in improved athletic performance."
The complaint claims there is no evidence the "minute quantities of magnesium and calcium" present in the Powerade drink make it superior to Gatorade.
Let's have a reality check here: the two major ingredients in sports drinks are sugar and salt. Some public health advocates even want them declared junk food, and taken out of schools:
"...a report from the University of California at Berkeley warns that students who drink one 20-ounce sports drink every day for a year may gain about 13 pounds. This is no surprise to some nutritionists, who note that when you look at the ingredients, it's water, high-fructose corn syrup, and salt."
But what about those other electrolytes? According to the sports medicine article on About.com:
Sports drinks can be helpful to athletes who are exercising at a high intensity for 60 minutes or more. Fluids supplying 60 to 100 calories per 8 ounces helps to supply the needed calories required for continuous performance. It's really not necessary to replace losses of sodium, potassium and other electrolytes during exercise since you're unlikely to deplete your body's stores of these minerals during normal training. If, however, you find yourself exercising in extreme conditions over 3 or 5 hours (a marathon, Ironman or ultramarathon, for example) you may likely want to add a complex sports drink with electrolytes.
"We stand behind our product and are prepared to defend the role Powerade plays in hydrating consumers," Coke said in a statement received later on Monday.
All I can get out of the latest chapter of the Pepsi Challenge is that both Pepsi and Coke offer tasty sports drinks that can give you a sugar boost and replace salt and potassium lost in extreme workouts. (They're also good for hangovers.) One contains two more meaningless trace elements than another. Case closed. Pass the Gatorade.
