Ribena seeks approval

I was interested to see Ribena back in the news this week with full-colour, half page adverts claiming all Ribena products now contain 50% of an adult’s recommended dietary intake – a claim apparently backed up by AsureQuality.

Cast your mind back a year and you may remember GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of Ribena, were prosecuted for misleading advertising regarding the amount of vitamin C in ready-to-drink Ribena. Instead of their claim that ‘the blackcurrents in Ribena have four times the vitamin C of oranges’ Ribena had NO detectable level of vitamin C.

This week’s adverts clearly aim to reassure and win-back consumers that deserted Ribena in droves last year. The ads have an air of contriteness about them, noting: “It needs only one more tick of approval. Yours” and continues “As promised, the whole Ribena range now contains at least 20mg of vitamin C per serving …”

Will they win me back? Er … no.

As a consumer, the least I expect is what’s promised in the first place. The fact that there was no vitamin C in their ready-to-drink product was a major issue but it wasn’t what turned me off Ribena completely. It was how they chose to handle the whole situation, including ignoring it, denying it and trying to blame others, that drove me away. I consider their behaviour was arrogant and inappropriate and despite the promises in their new adverts, I’m highly unlikely to buy from them now as a matter principle.

The New Zealand Cancer Society, on the other hand, when faced with a similar incident just a few months ago, acted in a completely different way. When independent tests of their factor-30 sun-spray failed to meet the claims being made they responded swiftly and publicly. They recalled their products from shelves, offered to have the entire range tested, offered to give people their money back and fronted-up to media and consumers to say they took the whole incident extremely seriously and were willing to be held accountable.

Two virtually identical incidents but one company’s reputation was enhanced whilst the other company’s reputation was, and to a large extent, remains, in tatters. Why?

In my opinion, the Cancer Society acted with integrity, maintained trust and as a result, retained many of its customers who were probably thinking “you can’t get it right all the time, but they’re accepting responsibility, making genuine offers to put things right and generally acting with integrity.” GSK, on the other hand, refused to accept responsibility, tried to blame anyone but themselves and basically treated its customers with disdain.

The new ‘tail between the legs’ adverts may win some former customers back but for others, the breach of trust that occurred, and lack of integrity GSK demonstrated, will ensure many continue to buy brands they consider to be more honourable.