Corn Syrup's Sticky Situation: Can You Change Consumer Perception?

Have You Heard? Corn Syrup is Good for You!

Alright, so that's probably not the complete truth. We all know high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) isn't the next "health food." But recent commercials released by the Corn Refiners Association attempt to convince consumers that corn syrup in "reasonable amounts" is completely safe. This campaign (www.sweetsurprise.com) according to CRA president (Audrae Erickson), "is designed to correct the record...not a campaign to drive consumption (of corn syrup)" (per AP article posted on MSNBC).

See the commercials:

Commercial Version 1

Commercial Version 2

Corn syrup has faced public criticism, primarily due to studies linking obesity problems to sweetened beverages. Per the Mayo Clinic, "...research has yielded conflicting results about the effects of high-fructose corn syrup. For example, various early studies showed an association between increased consumption of sweetened beverages (many of which contained high-fructose corn syrup) and obesity. But recent research — some of which is supported by the beverage industry — suggests that high-fructose corn syrup isn't intrinsically less healthy than other sweeteners, nor is it the root cause of obesity."

Recently I've written entries about how deceiving consumers can negatively impact a brand. And although I think the corn syrup campaign message is misleading and also don't think it will be completely effective in "re-educating" consumers, I don't plan to turn this into another "what you shouldn't do" entry. What I am going to talk about is how the issue driving this campaign is a realistic marketing problem. For example:

• What do you do if your product/brand has a bad reputation in the public eye – because the consumer is misinformed?
• What does it take to change consumer behavior/perceptions about your brand/product(s)?
• Will an ad campaign like this set consumers straight and be able to re-educate them/make them change their beliefs?
• Is changing perceptions possible when the message isn't consistent? (i.e. various external sources are promoting different “facts” about your product)

Changing the way consumers view a company, product, brand, etc. is one of the largest challenges a marketer will face. It is difficult to break perception since it has been developed over time from a variety of influences – psychographics, knowledge, feelings, family, culture, etc. The good (or bad) new is that perceptions are dynamic, changing as the consumer becomes more or less familiar with things. And thus, as marketers, we try different things to change the consumer's mind. Most of the time we look to the 4-P's: Product, Placement, Pricing, and Promotion. For example:

• Product: Is there a component of the product that is turning off consumers? Should we change the product all-together?
• Placement: Is there any way to re-position the product so it will appeal to a different customer or fit into a different product category?
• Pricing: Sometimes reducing the price will cause a consumer to purchase the product (although many times this may cause a temporary rather than permanent change in behavior unless competition is high and the products in the category don't have many differentiating factors other than price).
• Promotion: You can change the affect a product has on consumers through pairing the product with a desired stimulus or put out appealing advertisements. You can put out advertising or materials that make the product or its attributes a compliment the target consumer's beliefs. You can attempt to re-educate a consumer.
• A Combination of the Above: In an extreme case, some people would say the solution is to "brand, brand, brand." In other words, change multiple "P's"...update your image, release new information, redesign the product's packing, etc.

Now back to the "Sweet Surprise" campaign. The situation facing the Corn Refiners Association is unusual. The issue consumers have is with the product itself. The CRA can't add something to the product to make it more appealing - it is what it is. They also can't sponsor a study proving HFCS is completely safe because first, consumers won't listen to the results (CRA study = self-serving agenda) and second, consumers know corn syrup is not all-natural, it's chemically processed. Further, the CRA isn't able to change the consumer's ideals - you won't be successful in making processed/artificial the new ideal for food when the trend is going towards healthy, organic, natural, etc. Nor will you be able to make a consumer put "being healthy" lower on their list of priorities. Finally, corn syrup faces a non-compensatory consumer strategy. Lars Perner from the Marshall School of Business at USC quotes: “A compensatory decision involves the consumer “trading off” good and bad attributes of a product…Occasionally, a decision will involve a non-compensatory strategy. For example, a parent may reject all soft drinks that contain artificial sweeteners. Here, other good features such as taste and low calories cannot overcome this one “non-negotiable” attribute.”

Based on the television ads, the strategy the Corn Refiners Association has decided to pursue is to attempt to re-educate consumers. However, with all of the negatives mentioned above, what do you think they should do? Maybe it's time for the CRA to come up with a new product to market that actually benefits consumers (Innovation people! Give the people something they do want...consumer tastes have changed!) and give up on the stale, sweetener of yesteryear that is leaving a bad taste in consumers' mouths.

What's YOUR Priority?: The USPS and its conflicting messages

A few days ago I wrote an entry on customer deception - about how some brands were relying on short-sizing to keep product prices constant and help preserve their bottom line. Continuing on this theme, I came across a blog discussing how the US Postal Service is yet another brand deceiving consumers to help out their financial state. Bruce Watson from Walletpop talks about what he calls a scam by the Postal Service. He writes: “In an effort to combat its budget deficit of over $1 billion, the United States Postal Service is, allegedly, trying to upsell its premium services while hiding its less expensive options. According to an anonymous source, the USPS has instructed its employees to stop offering inexpensive shipping; whenever customers come in with anything larger than a letter, employees are supposed to ask if they want Express Mail guaranteed overnight delivery or Priority Mail. If the customer asks about cheaper options, the employee is then allowed to discuss First Class, Parcel Post, or Media Mail. The key element here is that the customer has to mention the cheaper options, as the counterperson can't.”

What I find interesting about Bruce's entry is the fact that just this week, the USPS announced their 5 year strategic plan called “Vision 2013.” Vision 2013 "rests on three major strategies: 1) Focus on what matters most to customers. 2) Leverage our strengths to create customer value and profits to invest in continued improvement. 3) Embrace change in the way we respond to emerging customer needs and a rapidly evolving business environment.” Regarding focusing on what matters to customers, the USPS plans to build on trusted relationships, communicate effectively, start with customer needs, and provide excellent customer experiences. In their words, “being "good enough" is not sufficient to increase customer loyalty and gain new business.”

Although it has a long and enduring brand heritage, it's no secret the United States Postal Service does not have the most sterling reputation. In January of 2006, Brand Channel wrote an article criticizing the brand ("USPS - Return to Sender") stating "presently, a country's postal service is a necessary evil." They noted that "...the brand image of the postal service is largely shaped by its customers' visits to the local post office, and occasional undelivered or late mail." And based on their documented experience (a visit to a Post Office in NYC near Columbia), the brand image was definitely not a positive one.

Since the USPS obviously needs to take some drastic measures to help improve their brand, Vision 2013, seems like it should be a way to help turn around this "brand gone bad." However, I wonder when exactly this 5-year-plan is slated to be kicked into high gear - now or later? If the rumors circulating the internet are true, being deceptive about your product offerings isn’t really a good start. Communicating effectively? Building on trusted relationships? People are going to think this is a joke. Well, then again, maybe it is...and if so, the joke's on us.

Let's Be (dis)Honest: How Short-Sizing Can Impact Your Brand

Vs.
Deception
De*cep"tion\, n. [F. d['e]ception, L. deceptio, fr. decipere, deceptum. See Deceive.]
1. The act of deceiving or misleading. --South.
2. The state of being deceived or misled.
3. That which deceives or is intended to deceive; false representation; artifice; cheat; fraud.
Usage: Deception usually refers to the act, and deceit to the habit of the mind; hence we speak of a person as skilled in deception and addicted to deceit. The practice of deceit springs altogether from design, and that of the worst kind; but a deception does not always imply aim and intention. It may be undesigned or accidental. An imposition is an act of deception practiced upon some one to his annoyance or injury; a fraud implies the use of stratagem, with a view to some unlawful gain or advantage.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 30 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deception>.

DECEPTION
Today I decided to talk about something that has been all over the media lately. Consumer deception. In regards to marketing, deceiving the customer is not generally viewed as a healthy practice, or something that gives you any sort of competitive advantage in the marketplace. So why is it many major companies use deception on a regular basis (whether or not they acknowledge they are doing it)? And why would these companies resort to such measures that could have a negative impact on their brand's reputation?

The answer is (surprise, surprise) M O N E Y. Most companies have regular, focused efforts towards cost cutting to help improve their bottom line and keep them competitive in the market place. Although this is a common exercise, in times of economic hardship and rising raw material costs, an organization may struggle to find creative ways to reduce costs without impacting their customers. Since the bottom line becomes the primary focus for survival, when all of the "good" ideas are used up, a company is forced to move on to the “tough choices.” I worked at an automotive company for seven years and am very familiar with the concept of cost reductions – and the fact some decisions are very difficult to make when keeping the end consumer in mind. For example, did you know leather seats in most vehicles aren’t 100% leather? If you have ever see the phrase “leather seating surfaces” or “leather trimmed” or “leather appointed” in regards to seats, that pretty much means the places your back and bottom touch on the seat will be leather, but the backs, lower trim and possibly sides of the seat are made out of vinyl. Through reducing the amount of leather in a seat, the manufacturer is able to save a ton of cost while still providing a durable seat that “appears” to be 100% leather. Is this deception? Definitely. The key here is in the way the seats are described to the customer. The wording doesn't clearly call out that synthetic materials are also used in the seats.

Deception is an embarrassing practice that companies have grown to rely upon. And it’s definitely not something that helps obtain or retain customers. So how often do we as consumers have the “wool pulled over our eyes?” More often than we might think. The automotive leather seats an... just one example. Another? In 2006, there was debate in the meat packaging industry over the use of carbon monoxide to help keep meat look bright red. Consumers were upset thinking this practice was going to "trick" them in to purchasing meat that wasn’t as fresh as it appeared. Recently, we have been reading and watching news reports talking about food companies short-sizing products to help protect their bottom line as the cost to produce products continues to increase. Andrew Martin of the New York Times reported (“Ate a Whole Pint? Check Again”) about a study Consumer Reports had done on this practice. "The magazine surveyed consumers in July and found that 75 percent had noticed that packages were smaller and that 71 percent believed that the main reason for the change was to hide price increases from consumers.”

Short-sizing isn’t a new phenomenom. In January of 2001 (yes, almost 8 years ago), Greg Winter wrote an article entitled “What Keeps a Bottom Line Healthy? Weight Loss.” In it, he discussed how Frito Lay had been putting fewer chips in a bag to help cut costs – i.e. conducting "weight-outs." He stated “It is a subtle way of earning more from everyday products without scaring off price-conscious shoppers, and it is quite legal as long as the package accurately describes what is inside.” But even if the box says how many ounces it contains, is the practice really ethical? Currently, when looking at some short-sized products placed side-by-side to their former model, you can't immediately discern a difference. An Apple Jacks box, for example, is the same height and width but is thinner on the sides and Skippy Peanut Butter looks the same unless you turn over the jar and compare the indentations at the bottom.

The sad thing is not only are these companies being deceptive in their short-sizing, but they aren’t even admitting they are doing something wrong. In fact, many claim these actions have been demanded by the customer. Back in June of this year, ABC 7 News in Arlington, VA conducted an investigation on products that had been short-sized. Kris Van Cleave reported on the following statements from companies. Karen May from Tropicana said the new 89 oz (ilo 96 oz) juice container “makes it easier for any consumer, especially children, to pour a glass of juice.” James Malone, spokesman for Georgia Pacific in regards to Brawny reducing the number of paper towel sheets from 110 to 88 per roll said “It’s a thicker towel…what the research showed us is they (the customer) needed to use fewer sheets per task.” A couple of weeks ago, CNN Money ran a story called the “Incredible Shrinking Cereal Box” They reported “many food companies say their customers accept, and appreciate, the choices they must make to maintain a quality product in the current economic environment." In March, Brandweek quoted Paul Chibe of Wrigley’s with saying that customers wouldn’t mind smaller sized packages of gum because "To them the value goes up because they're getting a better tasting product in a better package. Price is not the way the consumer is looking at this.”

Not too long ago, I remember purchasing cereal that advertised “20% More Free!” at the top of the box. With the latest weight-outs that have been occurring, I wonder why these food companies haven’t been advertising “Now – with 25% less!” OK – I don’t wonder…that’s not something you want to advertise. So if you don’t want to advertise it (or want a bunch of people blasting it all over the web, on the news, etc. when they find out), why do it? Unless you’re talking about a waist-line, most consumers do not think of shrinkage as a good thing. This is America where portion sizes at restaurants are often enormous, fast food meals can be super-sized, and people buy food in bulk at places like Sam’s Club and Costco. So is this practice of short-sizing good for business? Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America once stated ''If you want to keep faith with the customers, be honest with them.'' As marketers we know sometimes we tend to s t r e t c h the truth. We know that sometimes our ads contain fantasy and dreams, glitter and make-up. We airbrush out flaws. Why? Nothing really looks as good as we want it to and to the customer (we think) bigger, more, flashier is better, right? But is some of this deception harmful to our brands? The answer is a definite “yes.”

Walletpop quoted Harry Balzer of the Consumer Research Firm NPD Group. "People typically spend 10 percent of their income on food and that won't change, he said, so instead they're looking for deals, eating less or changing brands.” So if we think customers may start to switch brands, we panic. We can’t up the price on the current box (we think). So we choose to put less in or change the package so it holds less and see if the customer notices. But when consumers find out about this practice they may feel cheated and start thinking your brand is dishonest. Maybe this isn't the only thing you're hiding from them. Could your plant conditions be unsanitary? Maybe those natural ingredients you list on the box aren’t actually so natural. We know that due to the internet, consumers are now more educated than ever and aren't afraid to share their reviews of products/companies with everyone. So it will be interesting to see, as more and more of these short-sizing actions occur, which consumers will actually bite and which ones will bite back.