Is General Mills' Marketing and Advertising of Fruity Cheerios Immoral?
There is a heated discussion and debate in the PEERtrainer community about the introduction of Fruity Cherrios. People are pointing out how the introduction of Fruity Cheerios is intentionally deceptive. Parents who would never buy anything like
Fruit Loops, buy Fruity Cheerios thinking they are healthy, not
realizing that Fruity Cheerios only have 25% less sugar than Fruit
Loops.
The comments are interesting, and show that people view General Mills being intentionally deceptive. Of course that is what good marketing is supposed to do. But the effect of this good marketing is to trick you into giving your kids more sugar. When I was a kid there were cereals like Corn Flakes and Cheerios on the one hand, and Captain Crunch and Count Chocula on the other. The distinction was clear. Today it is not.
"Fruity
Cheerios is the kind of product tailor made to undermine my ability to
keep my kids sugar intake to a safe level" complained the first poster.
"I'm a mom and I understand the frustration of the original poster. Cheerios are a staple
everywhere. Children understand that ice cream is a special treat; Cheerios are
regarded as something you can eat every day, and the makers of Cheerios know
that. Try telling your child that "cheerios" are now a treat. It's not easy and
they knew it. "
Another argues that what they are doing is "immoral"
"It's about General Mills using an established brand name, which people have come
to trust, to sell a completely different and harmful product! I'm sure the other
parents -- and thousands of other parents - are not intending to serve junk food
to their kids. It says "Cheerios" so it must be good, right?
Unfortunately, General Mills does not hold its own brand in such high
esteem. It sees the popular "Cheerios" brand as a cash cow. They could compete
with Froot Loops and call the product something else, after all. Considering the
growing problem of childhood obesity (see link to article) what the company is
doing is immoral, although not illegal.
Maybe in an ideal world we would
not be feeding our children processed foods at all. If we make it, we know what
goes into it. Okay, maybe some of us have the time to make homemade granola --
but not all of us do. "
Another makes the same argument, using a recent trip to the supermarket as an example:
"Okay, so as a crunchy-granola type, I haven't paid much attention to Cheerios
recently. But yesterday I was in the store and it was impossible to miss the big
display of NEW! FRUITY CHEERIOS! with the slogan, "MOMS (and kids) LOVE THEM!"
Looking over the display touting nutrition vs the actual nutritional
information, I think this is exactly as deceptive as Starbuck's "Oat Nut Grain
Muffin" discussed earlier in the week: it's being made to sound healthy, but
it's a sugar bomb.
Now, does everyone have the time to read every
nutrition label in the supermarket? Of course not -- especially not a Mom w/ a
couple of restless kids in tow. I imagine she's in there and sees this huge
display about how healthy these are and how they are more palatable to kids and
just scoops them up. That's how the marketing is supposed to work, anyway.
And yes, I do think false advertising is immoral, and that advertising
TO young children is immoral, particularly if it is advertising for something
unhealthy."
It is an interesting question. It is a buyer beware world, and there are huge benefits to as much freedom as possible. But I'm curious to see if the actions of General Mills and others will force people to begin to regulate their advertsing- much the way cigarette and alcohol advertising is regulated.