an innocent advert in the news

Today there have been a few reports in the papers saying that innocent is trying to mislead consumers and make claims that aren’t really true. So we thought we’d give you our version of events. A while ago we decided to start making a detox smoothie, full of pomegranates, blueberries and acai – all ingredients that  contain a good amount of antioxidants. You can measure the antioxidants in a drink by testing its ORAC rating. So we did, and its ORAC rating was really high. Then we delved into the score some more, and found that it was greater than the ORAC score of the average five a day, according to studies in America.

Then we made an advert. And, though it mostly focussed on acai being natural, we also said that the smoothie ‘contains even more antioxidants than the average five a day’.

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) got a complaint about it. One person thought it was misleading. And although we provided evidence, they didn’t agree with the study we used to back up our antioxidant message. They also think that the word detox should only ever be used about things that can prove they actively remove toxins from the liver, whereas we've always thought that detoxing naturally is about making sure you get the good stuff to balance out the bad stuff.

We ran the ad in October last year, when we launched the recipe. We have no interest in confusing or misleading people. When we find that one of our recipes is  packed with extremely healthy ingredients, we like to pass the information on. Ultimately, we only ever want people to understand that eating fruit and veg is the best thing you can do. And we’d never want someone to think just drinking one of our bottles was all they should do that day. We figure people are smart enough to know that we’re not a quick fix, and that you’ve got to  eat your greens too. So if you read anything about us trying to trick you, now you've got both sides of the story.

Comments

[Scoop]

We still love you, Innocent!

[Darragh]

Brilliant. Fair play to you for doing that - I was hoping you would :)

Once again you just give great lessons on how to deal with the people who (like Scoop above) do love you.

You guys rock :-)

[Andy]

However you spin it though it's still misleading advertisting. Disappointed.

[innocentitis]

Have to say - this reprimand follows on quite closely from learning that Innocent haven't exactly been so transparent about the high sugar content in your flavoured water thiswater range. I'd expect that level of disingenuity in a big global corporation but not from innocent. Pretty disappointed.

[Maz]

Extremely disappointing, though really not surprising.

What you have shown is that, despite the façade of being an open and friendly company, you will, like most others, resort to somewhat underhand tactics, if you feel it will help capture a specific market.

The old saying of "if it seems too good to be true" once again rings true, it seems.

[SeeDub]

Dear Innocent, good for you, defending yourself on your own website. However my advice is this: just say sorry and move on. The explanation you give smacks of an excuse from a sulking child who has had his knuckles rapped and his toys taken away. That said, this is the first time Innocent has sounded like a corporate business in any of your marketing communications, and fits awkwardly with my perception of your excellently crafted brand. I have been a fan of Innocent Drinks for many years - help me keep the faith...

[John]

The ASA decision was quite clear. And yet here you're trying to spin it as though your advert was perfectly fine, and this is all some kind of mix-up because 'one person' complained?

Accept the ASA decision gracefully and move on. Even running the misleading advert *again* here on this webpage flys in the face of the ruling.

[Tushar Shah]

Keep smiling and stay innocent...we love the brand

[Scott]

I'm also very disappointed. The ASA and BBC say there's no nutritional proof smoothies count for any more than 1 portion of my 5 a day.

Despite this, Innocent advertises as such on the bottles (counts for at least 2 of your 5 a day). This is incorrect and misleading.

[Scott]

From the Food Standards agency website you link to:

"A glass (150ml) of fruit juice (however much you drink, fruit juice counts as a maximum of one portion a day)"

See for yourself:
http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthydiet/nutritionessentials/fruitandveg/

[jon]

Yep....also raises questions about the fruit content in Innocent....is that frozen
or fresh fruit juiced at source

[Richelieu]

As an interested consumer, I think the ASA ruling is both factually wrong and inconsistent.

The ORAC index is a well-regarded benchmark for antioxidant content and the advert's use of the phrase "detox" is similar (albeit equally vague) to the usage for a range of other products by other producers.

As such, Innocent has been singled out for unfair treatment.

I wonder how much this "special treatment" is related to Innocent's campaign against the exchequer's absurd and hypocritical levy of VAT on fruit juice?

[Red]

As Scoop before me - you're still loved!
Some people will take a grain of negativity and let it wipe out a whole beach (complete with palm tree)of positivity!

[Mart]

Sometimes putting your side of the story just sounds like sour grapes.

You should just have said that you made claims that you thought you could back up, but which the ASA didn't agree with, and you are sorry. Consumers like companies who can admit it when they are wrong more than companies who insist that they are right (even if they are right).

[Dave]

Regarding the "A glass (150ml) of fruit juice (however much you drink, fruit juice counts as a maximum of one portion a day)"
issue - are we saying that a glass of long life made-from-concentrate apple juice has exactly the same nutritional benefit as an innocent smoothie? I think not.

[Lindsay]

You are a great company trying to do something different. Long may you be around and may other companies who care (even just a little bit would be nice) spring up everywhere. Cheers innocent!
Well done!

[J]

'Falsely' claiming that a shed load of antioxidants is good?

Are we turning into the French?

Do innocent only use straight bananas - throwing away all curved ones as instructed by the EU? I sincerely hope not.

[athan]

Who is trying to mar our beloved Innocent?! Someone once said: "you count your success on the number of enemies you have". In this context, there is nothing to dispute about the innocent ad. It is just an avenue for 'enemies' (competitors) to take the lead. But Innocent shall thrive, and its pineapples, bananas and cococnut smoothie. Yummy.

[Gemma]

Why is it that when a company genuinely tries to do good things for consumers and they are successful because of it everyone wants to bring them down? Is it jealously? Innocent should be congratulated for trying to highlight the importance of eating more fruit!

[Scott]

Gemma

You're right and that why, thinking I've been getting 2 portions a day for the last year, but actually only getting one, that I can only blame Innocent's misleading marketing.

If there had been more integrity I'd probably have been buying 2 smoothies a day instead of one. As it is, I may switch back to plain old OJ

[Ruari McCallion]

Richelieu - I wonder how you justify your 'absurd and hypocritical' description of VAT being levied on smoothies?
Exemption is granted on classes of foods, not on particular items (with the sole exception, as far as I can see, of Twiglets. Why them, I know not).
Smoothies are processed foods, ready to consume. As such they fall under the same heading as a raft of other foodservice offers, including most fruit juices. Possibly arguable but not absurd, as such - anyone in business with the intention of making a profit by adding value is subject to VAT (value-added tax).
Hypocritical? Point out in what way smoothies are being treated differently.
You can have VAT-free smoothies. GO to your supermarket or fruit stall, buy fresh fruit (non-VATted), take it home, put it in the blender. Innocent is saving you that time and effort by providing a service: they're doing the work for you and delivering the product in a palatable and convenient form. That's adding value, which is subject to VAT.
Tesco's suppliers do exactly the same thing with a variety of products, fruit juices and other pre-packed, pre-mixed, blended goods made from fresh or frozen ingredients.
If you can come up with a classification for zero-rating that will include Innocent's smoothies but exclude products of those evil capitalists (!) at Unilever, Northern Foods or any of the others, then let us all know.
Don't confuse a commercial - verging on political - campaign for special treatment with a charitable or other worthy cause.

[andy steven]

"I'm also very disappointed. The ASA and BBC say there's no nutritional proof smoothies count for any more than 1 portion of my 5 a day.

Despite this, Innocent advertises as such on the bottles (counts for at least 2 of your 5 a day). This is incorrect and misleading"

this is the big issue, i only buy these smoothies over other brands because of these claims, very disapointed -- you have lost a customer here

[Steve Morton]

Innocent has been a breath of fresh air and thinking ever since you first went into business. Don't let this minor negative reporting sway your approach to your products or your people.

[rich at innocent]

Blimey. On re-reading our blog entry, we do sound like a bit of a surly teenager, so apologies for that and also sincere apologies if this ad did mislead anyone. Obviously, that was never our intention; every claim we make we do so in good faith. And when we were told the ASA was potentially unhappy last October with the ad we withdrew it immediately. Ultimately, the main message of the ad was that our drinks are 100% natural and made from nothing but fruit, which, it is fair to say, is a claim that no-one is contesting.

Thanks and apologies again for any confusion,

Rich
Co Founder

[Paul Vincent]

Folks, I dearly love your products, almost to the point of addiction. But when I read the bit where you say:

"They also think that the word detox should only ever be used about things that can prove they actively remove toxins from the liver, whereas we've always thought that detoxing naturally is about making sure you get the good stuff to balance out the bad stuff."

Then, given that the word itself - "detox" - strongly suggests something to do with removing toxins, then to claim that you thought otherwise suggests you're incredibly stupid, or deliberately disingenuous (I know it's a word longer than you use in your child-adult packaging and advertising copy, but I'm sure you know what it means). Since you're a hugely successful commercial enterprise with a *vast* turnover, I strongly doubt you're stupid. Which means it must be the other one. Very, very disappointed, but I suppose it shows you're turning into the kind of cynical corporation that your detractors would claim.

[ben]

If this kind of investigation or complaint was launched against another company, on average many more faults would be found with their brands. This has only been morphed into such a big issue as Innocent have such a good reputation. I would think that the moderating agencies would be better off spending their time investigating obviously unethical and unhealthy companies, rather than one technicality with a company that is quite clearly one of the healthiest options on the market, and does a lot of good in the world.

So, where is the massive ASA inquiry into a corporate and environmental giant such as Tesco then? And surely if there was one, Tesco wouldn't link the page regarding it from the front page of their website, as Innocent have done.

Keep up the good work Innocent and keep going with the smoothie making!

Ben

[Emma]

To all the people out there that are slagging off the company:

Grow up, pick up the toys that you have thrown out of the pram and get with your lives.

To Andy Steven:

Have you actually tried any other brand of smoothie? Try them, and I promise you will be back. Other brands are (not so) cheap imitations, mainly made of concentrated orange juice (I believe it's cheap) and pale in comparison.

To Scott:

Bless you. If you read the guidelines properly, you'd see that it clearly states "however much you drink, fruit juice counts as a maximum of one portion a day" so buy, 2, 3, 4 or more bottles a day. Buy one of each flavour. Buy a whole case! The debate isn't about the amount of juice, it's about the addition of fruit pulp - ie fibre. And how many people here claiming that they've been misled actually make the effort to eat 3 other types of fruit and veg a day. every day without fail? Are you really blaming your unhealthy lifestyles on Innocent?

Red:

Love the analogy. Perfect.

Lindsay, J and Athan:

All good points, well put!

Paul Vincent:

I hope someone attacks your every teeny tiny mistake, rubs it in your face and never lets you forget it, whether just or not, then writes about it on a website. O look, I just did!

And finally Rich and all the guys there:

The real fans still love you. Chin up, everyone that matters can see what a brilliant company and set of ideals and ethics you have! Keep smiling and have another smoothie (I hear they're not only fabulously tasty, they're also really. really, really, really good for you!!!)

Well that's my soap box well and true stood on!

Have a nice evening!

[Scott]

I have to say I agree with Ben.

Yes Innocent have been naughty and have been caught, and I've had my personal whinge earlier today

Now I suggest we channel our obvious energies at the companies that put who knows what sort of crap in their food and pass it off as healthy. You know who they are....

[Julian Oddy]

First you adulterate your bottled water with sugar and now the ASA states "Innocent guilty over smoothie health claims"

Not quite so Innocent after all !! I'm afraid my love afair with your products must end

[Brittany]

I'm not suprised to see stories like this one popping up in news articles - it is the job of the news media to be skeptical about everything. But I also think that the people at innocent know more about their product than any of these consumer affairs correspondents. I was relieved to read in Rich's posting that the ad was pulled after the ASA voiced its concerns last October and it reassures my belief that the people at innocent know what they're doing. It is a shame that this statemement was not included in the Independent article.

Every business has to go through this sort of confrontation once in a while, and I'm sure that the company will find good use for it as an excuse for improvement.

Keep up the good work, innocent, and thanks for caring about what we think!

Brittany :)

[yougottadowhatyougottado]

I'm kinda disappointed about the detox spin; I almost didn't expect it from you. But at the end of the day you have to market yourself - and to do that you need a claim or a unique selling point. I'm in marketing and I understand it - your claim was true, you just weren't forthcoming in the explanation and limits of that claim. You let consumers believe their perception of something which is detoxifying, not yours. (But you probably wouldn’t admit it.)

This is all around us all of the time - If only the consumer realised this.

A word to the wise - don't take everything so literally.

[The Carrot]

I'd just like to point out that the sugar in the This Waters is not that ad as some people are making out.
All fruits contain natural sugars, Innocent is just being honest by putting them on the labels. Apples, for instance, contain (I am told) quite a lot of natural sugars.
And so what if they put a teensy pinch of sugar in the waters? We all need small amounts of sugar, and I'm sure if they didn't you would be complaining they tasted sour!
Keep up the good work innocent. Some people will try and pick at any loose thread they can find, just ignore it. You are a great company, and I would love to work at fruit towers one day!

[Gemma]

This is getting blown out of all proportion...

Firstly to all those people saying innocent are becoming an evil corportaion "just like the rest of them", isn't it innocent who only last week pulled off the first ever 100% recycled bottle? Very evil. Don't they give 10% of their profit to charity? Even more evil. Aren't they trying to get VAT taken off fruit to make it more affordable for everyone? Don't they knit little bobble hats to put on their bottles? Definitely the behaviour of an evil corporation trying to rip people off. Get real - you're all jumping on the media bandwagon and clearly know nothing about what innocent stands for.

And secondly, to all the people getting their knickers in a twist about sugar in water - stop complaining and just don't drink it! Instead, go and sip on a nice sugar-free diet cola drink, and enjoy the additives, preservatives, artificial sweetners, colours, e-numbers and stabilisers. It's got to have something in it otherwise it would taste aweful and you might as well drink plain water, so the choice is between sugar or all the other rubbish. Everyone need some sugar in their diet because that's where most of our energy comes from. Getting sugar from fruit has got to be better than a chocolate bar!

[Ruari McCallion]

Gemma -

There's no VAT on fresh fruit - never has been. There is VAT on processed food.
I do hope that's clear now, or does it have to be spelled out yet again? Just in case:
n-o v-a-t o-n f-r-e-s-h f-r-u-i-t.
v-a-t o-n p-r-o-c-e-s-s-e-d f-o-o-d-s.
Smoothies are processed foods. Maybe less bad for you than most (but ask your dentist about the effects of sugars on your teeth and dental health) but processed nonetheless.
Want a VAT-free smoothie? buy fresh fruit (no VAT on fresh fruit - never has been), take it home and work it through your blender. If someone offers to take the fag out of it - the shopping for the fruit, the blending and the packaging - and it suits your lifestyle, then fine, great - no problem with that. They add value, so you have to pay for it and their service is subject to value added tax (VAT).
BTW, the Italians were first with 100% biodegradable plastic packaging, at least six years ago. Sacmi Imola, IMA srl and ICA SpA, to name but three. American companies - including Wal-Mart - have been using them for years. Innocent are way behind the times. Just another corporation with a hippy image, I fear.

[Em]

Ruari-

Impressive rant but a couple of points of fact:

-You say: v-a-t o-n p-r-o-c-e-s-s-e-d f-o-o-d-s

Not strictly true:
-Biscuits? no VAT
-Chips? no VAT
-White bread? no VAT
-Burgers? no VAT
-Pizza? no VAT

The point of the VAT debate is supposedly "essential" foods like those above are VAT exempt, yet "non-esential" foods like fruit juice and smoothies are VAT at 17.5%, even through the goverment wants to encourage us to eat more healthily.

-You say italians were the first for 100% biodegradable packaging

Maybe, but isn't the Innocent bottle made from 100% recycled plastic? That's a bit different. Maybe the use of "100%" in both descriptions confused you?

[Mo]

Give Innocent a break!
It's not like they pulled a Ribena is it!?

[Ruari McCallion]

Em -
VAT - the general list of ratings is to be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/27osw4

chocolate-covered (or half-covered) biscuits carry VAT but you are correct that un-chocolated biscuits are ZR - zero-rated.
"For standard-rating to apply the potato and cereal products must also be packaged and ready to eat without any further preparation" so - chips that are ready to eat are standard rated. If they have to be cooked, they're regarded as potatoes and zero-rated.
Burgers - plain meat burgers, to be taken home and cooked, are zero-rated, same as mince or any other meat. If prepacked with a bun, they're standard rated. Ready to eat - standard rated.
Pizzas ready-to-eat are standard rated. Pre-packed pizzas, to be taken home and cooked, are zero-rated.
White bread is a basic foodstuff, so zero-rated. It isn't 'bad for you' as such but, like so much else, it's bad for you in excess.
There is a trend here, which some may have spotted. Ready to eat processed food is pretty much always subject to VAT. Fresh food - including ingredients ready laid out - isn't.
Smoothies are processed food products, ready to eat.
If you can find a VAT ZR classification that would include smoothies (and the classification is not 'they're healthy' - in excess, they aren't, same as much else) but would not simply single out the products of one company, then this campaign might make some kind of sense. Without it, then it's just commercial special pleading, verging on the political. If Innocent wants us to vote for a particular party then they should say so. That would at least have the merit of being honest, open and up front.
Fair enough on the recycled plastic - Innocent beat GSK-owned Ribena to the punch by launching its recycled PET bottles a week after Ribena announced that it would be doing so from this month - October. That's for its whole range, BTW, not part. But in the wicked world of commercial competition and its PR, Innocent have gained a small lead.
But let us acknowledge the contribution made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Coca-Cola, Marks&Spencer, Boots and others - even Dow Chemicals - who had undertaken the research and field trials that led to the development of 100% recycled PET.
Errrmmm...isn't PET made from ethylene, chlorine and other such stuff? And isn't the recycled PET being brought in from another country? Look forward to the day when all manufacturers use PLA - polylactic acid, made from beet, maize, etc - and cut down on transport costs and emissions by using locally-based production sources. Perhaps Innocent can take a clear lead, there...

[Kevin]

To Emma:

Right on. Innoccent do their best to keep us informed and to be as transparent as possible but it's never good enough for some.
I don't care about reports, findings, VAT, e numbers or nitpicking my way through life.
All I care about is what goes into my body. (and what it looks like when it comes out!)

[Acai Berry Info]

I do love you innocent but have to agree with others that maybe you have pushed the boundries a little here. I have to agree with the ASA regarding the use of detox - you can't be liberal with it's meaning. Plus you made one big assumption is saying that "people are smart enough to know we're not a quick fix". They wont know this unless you tell them, and until you do they will maybe assume this from your advertising.