Advertisement

Pet Food News / Pet Food Labeling
On August 25, 2014

Review board recommends Blue Buffalo modify advertising

Company should discontinue claims that competitors are 'fooling' customers, says NARB

A panel of the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) has recommended that Blue Buffalo Company Ltd. modify its advertisements to avoid any express or implied messages that competing petfood companies are “fooling” or otherwise misleading consumers and modify its online “True BLUE Test” comparison chart. NARB is the appellate unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation.

Advertising claims made by Blue Buffalo for its BLUE brand petfood products were initially challenged by Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc., a competing manufacturer of petfood products, before the National Advertising Division (NAD), an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation. The challenged claims included a “True BLUE Test” chart that compared petfood brands and gave or withheld checkmarks.

NAD determined that the challenged advertisements reasonably conveyed the unsupported message that major petfood companies, including Hill’s, were misleading their customers by actively concealing the truth about the ingredients in their products and representing their products as being of high quality when they are not because they include lesser quality ingredients such as chicken by-product meals and corn gluten. The NAD recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the challenged advertisements to avoid any express or implied references to competing manufacturers misleading consumers because their products include chicken/meat by-product meal or other ingredients represented by Blue Buffalo to be less nutritious. Blue Buffalo appealed this recommendation.

NAD also found that the “True BLUE Test” comparison chart reasonably conveyed the inaccurate message that the absence of checkmarks for a manufacturer meant that all of that manufacturer’s petfood products had specified “undesirable” ingredients and none of that manufacturer’s petfood products had specified “desirable” ingredients. The NAD recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the “True BLUE Test” comparison chart by:

  • specifying the number of products which include or do not include certain ingredients
  • regularly monitoring product offerings of competing brands to ensure accuracy
  • modifying the format of its online disclosures
  • modifying its mobile disclosures
  • ensuring that checkmarks appear in a uniform manner

Blue Buffalo agreed to regularly monitor product offerings of competing brands, modify its mobile disclosures and ensure that checkmarks on its “True BLUE Test” chart appear more uniform; it appealed the remainder of the NAD’s recommendations.

Following its review of the evidence, the NARB panel determined that the challenged advertisements reasonably conveyed the unsupported message that all or most major petfood companies, including Hill’s, were misleading their customers by concealing the truth about ingredients in their products, and representing their products are high quality when they are not because they include lesser quality ingredients such as chicken by-product meal and corn gluten. The panel recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the challenged advertising to eliminate this message. The panel noted that the challenged advertisements encouraged pet owners to visit the Blue Buffalo website to take the “True BLUE Test” comparing Blue Buffalo products to other petfood brands. The “True BLUE Test” had either checkmarks or blank spaces for the Blue Buffalo brand and competing brands in several categories. The record showed numerous examples where a competing petfood company did not receive a check even though a significant majority of its products met the specified criteria.

The panel recommended that Blue Buffalo modify its “True BLUE Test” comparison chart to clearly communicate the total number of each brand’s products and the number of those products that include or do not include specified ingredients, clearly communicate the percentage of each brand’s products which include or do not include specified ingredients, or use other methods that clearly communicate the degree to which each brand’s products include or do not include specified ingredients. In addition, the panel recommended that any advertising referring consumers to the “True BLUE Test” be modified to make it clear that the “True BLUE Test” compares brands and avoid stating or implying that the “True BLUE Test” will enable consumers to compare specific petfood products.

Blue Buffalo, in its advertiser’s statement, said that “with all due respect to the NARB and the efforts and time of the NARB panel devoted to this matter, Blue Buffalo disagrees with the conclusions of the NARB.” The company said that while it is not “in complete agreement with this decision, we recognize that we voluntarily committed to participate in the self-regulatory process of the NAD and the NARB. Out of respect for that process, in our future advertisements we will strive to abide by this NARB decision, as well as the guidance of other NAD decisions … . We will incorporate changes to our ads and website that are consistent with the NARB recommendations, with all due diligence."

Comments powered by Disqus

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Read the April issue of Petfood Industry!

April 2015

The April 2015 issue of Petfood Industry looks at different pet food markets around the world. Read about Sojos, a US company which aims to transform the lives of pets through raw pet food. As these specialized diets become increasingly popular in the dog and cat food markets, learn how such trends are carrying over into bird and small animal food. Plus, see how pet food companies in Russia are reacting and reconsidering production strategies in the wake of rising prices due to exchange rate fluctuations.

READ MORE in Petfood Industry magazine

Advertisement