Category Archives: Huh?

Opaque Oil

It’s Foodie Friday and I’ve got olive oil on my brain. If you cook, you use olive oil at some point. You might even pay the premium for extra virgin, especially if you’re using it in a dressing. That’s where the fun begins today.

Oil tasting, BAIA October 2006 Wine Tasting, C...

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I read a book a couple of years ago called Extra Virginity. It’s written by Tom Mueller, who continues to write about the Italian olive oil business, which is rife with fraud. That’s right: you may be paying for a product that is not what you think it is. As reported in the Guardian:

Top Italian olive oil producers are under investigation for allegedly passing off lower-quality products as “extra virgin”, raising fresh concerns about allegations of consumer fraud in the industry. Turin police are examining whether seven companies – Carapelli, Bertolli, Santa Sabina, Coricelli, Sasso, Primadonna, and Antica Badia – have been selling virgin olive oil as 100% extra virgin. According to allegations in Italian press reports, an analysis of samples from all seven brands found that they did not meet EU labelling rules for extra virgin olive oil.

It’s not just the olive oil guys. There is a significant risk of fraud with fish, honey, milk, select spices (saffron, black pepper, chili powder), fruit juices, meat, grains and organic foods. This topic is way too long for a daily screed, but there are two business points which are applicable to any of us in business. The first, and most obvious, is that when consumers can no longer trust your brand, they will move on. Look at what has happened to Volkswagen after they rigged the results of their auto emission tests. You might think that your brand is strong enough to come back after that sort of loss of trust, but you’re delusional. We’ve spent a fair amount of time on honesty and transparency this week, so you know my point of view.

Second, and less obvious.  Chances are that the consumer won’t realize that they’ve been deceived.  They will probably think their dish is just not great or that they did something “wrong” when the fraudulent product doesn’t perform well.  Even if they don’t lose faith in the brand, they might just stop being a consumer of that category altogether.  I am unaware of any industry that wants to shrink its user base, and while people won’t stop cooking, they might switch to another kind of oil that has the same characteristics or to another type of car than a diesel.

I realize that fraud in the food world – or any other business – isn’t new.  There are reports of doctored products going back centuries.  The difference now is that detection and reporting happen more rapidly and that reporting can be widespread instantly.  The damage never goes away because the reports turn up in searches forever.  The solution?  Don’t do it!

Leave a comment

Filed under food, Huh?

Crap Merchants

Maybe John Lennon had the Internet in mind when he wrote “Strawberry Fields/Nothing is real”.  OK, I realize the place in the song came long before the Web was invented, but they both have a decided lack of reality.  Since dishonesty or a lack of transparency seem to be this week’s theme, let me throw out another thought that’s prompted by the interwebs which might be helpful in business.  

There is a column in the Washington Post called What’s Fake On The Internet This Week.  It’s ending, unfortunately.  Like a car wreck, there is tragedy in every column but you can’t turn away.  What’s tragic is that people believe the things highlighted.  You’ve probably seen some of the amazing crap that goes viral.  Burger King refusing to sell Diet Coke to anyone ordering a 2,000 calorie Double Whopper or new flavors of Oreos.  Those are relatively benign.  It’s the junk about race or religion that is treated as Gospel that’s tragic.

How does this stuff get started?  It’s not an accident.  There are fake news sites that spend all day making this stuff up.  I realize that’s not new – the supermarket tabloids have been doing it for decades.  The difference is social media.  People don’t clip and send a National Enquirer article to hundreds of people but they certainly post things on Facebook.  One guy admitted he that tries to invent stories that will provoke strong reactions in middle-aged conservatives. They share a lot on Facebook, he explained; they’re the ideal audience.  Why do they do this?  Traffic equals eyeballs; lots of eyeballs equals revenue.

That really isn’t the business point.  This quote is:

Walter Quattrociocchi, the head of the Laboratory of Computational Social Science at IMT Lucca in Italy, has spent several years studying how conspiracy theories and misinformation spread online, and he confirmed some of my fears: Essentially, he explained, institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake.

We laugh at the fools who believe that Martians live among us and yet we’re all too willing to circulate information in business which confirms our own view of how the business is functioning.  That’s dangerous.  While a reality distortion field might work for a Steve Jobs, it probably won’t for you.  We need to find out the truth and not confirm out own cognitive bias. Laughing about the crap merchants who push this drivel is one thing.  Being one yourself is quite another, even if you’re less public than the folks who publish it on the Web. Besides, who wants to put their hand in the air and admit they fell for something so blatantly fake? You?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?, Reality checks

Dishonesty As A Feature, Not A Bug

Since we began the year yesterday with a screed about data gathering practices which are less than forthcoming, let’s continue with some thinking on native advertising.  I admit I’m fairly old school about it, but before you jump to conclusions about what that means, let me explain.  I mean REALLY old school, such as when the show’s talent stood in front of the camera and did a commercial read.  With 40 years in the media business under my belt, I have no problems with advertising.  Where I do have an issue is when advertising masquerades as something else.

Let’s start with the fact that consumers generally don’t know that native ads are, in fact, ads.  Two studies support this:

Across both studies, relatively few viewers understood that the article itself was paid advertising: only 7% in Study 1 and 18.3% in Study 2 (in which all conditions used the most recognizable language, “sponsored content”).

So even though there was a disclaimer of sorts around the article, having the reader mistake it for editorial content isn’t a bug: it’s a feature.  The FTC seems to understand this and issued some guidelines around Christmas.  As reported in Media Post:

The new guidance directs companies to label native ads that potentially could be mistaken for editorial content with terms like “advertisement,” “paid advertisement,” or “sponsored advertising content.” The FTC specifically criticizes labels like “promoted” or “promoted stories,” stating that those terms “are at best ambiguous and potentially could mislead consumers that advertising content is endorsed by a publisher site.”

In other words, don’t mislead your readers.  Call an ad an ad.  The studies, by the way, say that you should do so in the middle of the native piece for maximum identification, and not at the top as is commonly done now.  Seems pretty fair, except that the IAB reacted by saying the FTC was way out of line because it might “stifle innovation.”  It’s not a small issue – native ads represent a $7.9 billion pool of ad money and that pool is expected to grow to $21 billion by 2018.  That’s a lot of misleading.

One need not be a publishing genius to grasp that when a reader figures out that something they perceived to be editorial is, in fact, advertising, they will think less of, and possibly question, everything else in the publication.  The research found

When readers perceive a difference between publisher-created editorial content and paid advertising that resembles editorial content there are differences in how they perceive the credibility of the news story. As online publishers seek to balance the pull of native advertising revenue with a potential push for disclosures from regulators and advocates, they should be aware that the best attempts to create informed consumers may result in negative perceptions of news credibility and quality.

In other words, the short-term gain of the native ad can jeopardize the long-term value of the brand’s credibility.  That’s not a bug either.  There is not a thing wrong with the ad-supported business model until we start disguising the ads.  That’s when we jeopardize the entire enterprise, in my opinion.  Yours?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?, Reality checks