Last week it was widely reported that adverts from Uniqlo, Calvin Klein and Adidas had been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) as the brands had been unable to substantiate their adverts’ green claims. All three stated the use of recycled materials when that was only partially the case, or it applied only to a proportion of the products within a range.
It seems too obvious to advise that any claims made by a marketing campaign must be true, and yet clearly some companies are still tempted to exaggerate or embellish if it will deliver the desired results.
But in communications today, it’s not enough just to make a claim about a product or service. Even without the ASA holding brands to account, there’s enough information at our disposal via the internet that we can do our own research into any advertising claims before making an investment. To truly pique the interest of a consumer today, a product or service must be marketed with honesty and backed up by real evidence.
There was a time, however, long before regulations and the ASA, when a brand could make a fabricated claim and even make it stick. Marketing was able to shape cultural norms, fashions and habits because information flowed in only one direction. It wasn’t possible for the average consumer to fact-check or carry out research of their own.
When marketing could invent demand
Gillette made women shave
Gillette introduced the very first razor for women in 1915, and with it firmly changed beauty standards for the next 100+ years. The company had grown as far as it could in the men’s market and needed a new problem to solve.
At the time, the concept of shaving for women was bizarre, but Gillette packed their ads with suggestions that women might be embarrassed about their underarm hair, that it was unfeminine, and planted the idea that hairless skin was both youthful and beautiful.
The brand also claimed that shaving was already all the rage in Europe, which wasn’t true at all. The idea took off, and with a simple marketing campaign, Gillette had invented demand and a multi-million-pound product category (that first razor cost £120 a pop in today’s money) that had never existed before.
The diamond industry invented engagement rings
Likewise, the concept of the diamond engagement ring was originally a marketing ploy by jeweller De Beers. De Beers set out in the late 1930s – just as diamond sales were plummeting – to convince men that diamonds were scarce (not true) and therefore inherently valuable, making them the only appropriate jewel for an engagement. Not only that, but it claimed the size and quality of the stone was indicative of the scale of the romance. The slogan “A diamond is forever” followed, as well as the idea that it was necessary to spend multiple months’ salary on a proper engagement. In the years since, the use of a diamond engagement ring has spread and grown all around the world, becoming a cultural norm in many countries.
Listerine invented halitosis
Listerine is another great example. In the late 1800s, Listerine was first marketed as a surgical antiseptic and later as a floor cleaner. But by the 1920s the Listerine marketing team had invented the term ‘halitosis’ by building on the Latin word for breath, “Halitus”. They didn’t invent bad breath, but they marketed it as a serious medical condition that needed to be cured by using Listerine. Like Gillette, their ads tapped into social anxieties. The phrase “Often the bridesmaid but never the bride” was coined to play on the minds of young women and build demand for the mouth wash that had never been needed before.
None of these brands were required to prove their claims. And consumers had no way of questioning how scarce diamonds were or whether underarm hair was indeed out of fashion in France. Whether halitosis was a serious medical condition. Marketers knew that if they hammered home a claim as regularly and as widely as they could, it would wriggle its way into the collective psyche and demand would inevitably follow.
Would these campaigns survive modern scrutiny
Today, consumers fact-check. They compare reviews, they ask AI and they research alternatives. If “a diamond is forever” then they’ll want to see the evidence behind the claim, Google whether diamonds are really that durable, and hear from some real, independent customers of De Beers about their experience.
Authenticity is questioned every step of the way, to the point that even the origin of seemingly independent reviews and case studies are often doubted. The rise in influencer marketing means a paid ad can be fairly easily passed off as a friendly recommendation to the untrained eye.
But evidence is key. And without research, reviews and case studies, many brands wouldn’t stand a chance.
Proof has become the new persuasion
When a client tells us they want to hit the national press the first thing we ask them is ‘do you have any research or a case study to back it up?’
It’s not enough to have a new product or a catchy slogan – no matter how good it is. The need must first be substantiated with survey data or real-world examples. Then the product or service needs to be proven to solve that problem or fulfil that need with independent reviews or case studies.
Journalists want real world, human stories. Stories that are personal and relatable. Whatever the product is, they need to believe there’s a genuine need for it, that it works and that the evidence speaks for itself.
Gillette, De Beers and Listerine sold a story, but stories alone aren’t enough. Even with the biggest of ad budgets, the ASA will be on your case if you can’t back up a claim.
Communications today is less about creating myths and more about proving truths.
And that’s especially true when a product or service relates to a subject as serious as people’s finances or home-moving experience. In this market, research, reviews and real-world case studies are the key to building a reputation as a trusted, authentic brand that delivers on its promises.
Read our next blog on: Have reactive comments lost their value?