Red Bull To Pay Out $13 Million Settlement in False Advertising Case

New flash everyone: Red Bull does not actually give you wings!

Red Bull agreed to pay more than $13 million to settle a class action lawsuit which alleged the company falsely advertised its energy drinks.

According to Bevnet, the plaintiff representing the class, Benjamin Careathers, said that Red Bull misleads consumers about the superiority of its products. Particularly, in the ‘Red Bull gives you wings’ campaign, the company claimed the product increased concentration, performance, and reaction speed.

Careathers went on further to allege that the “deception is proliferated through the company’s advertising on television, the Internet, social media and events, athlete endorsers, glossy print brochures, marketing campaigns and its slogan-promoting Red Bull Flugtag series.”

The lawsuit cites articles in the New York Times that indicated the effects of the drinks actually came from the caffeine alone, and not from any of the other active ingredients, such as guarana.

Despite Red Bull’s denials, the company opted to settle. The settlement includes any individual who purchased a Red Bull between January 1, 2002 and October 3, 2014. If you were someone who did make a purchase in this nearly 12-year time span, here are your options. You can:

A) Be reimbursed $10 or
B) Receive 2 Red Bull products retailing at $15

You can stake your claim for re-imbursement here.

Source from :

Sourcefed

The Music Industry Is Literally Brainwashing You to Like Bad Pop Songs

This really can’t be something new… I you have ever felt that people’s taste in music is full of bull’ than this is the article for you. I’ve been studying this phenomenon in my country where most music productions are low quality, but still very appreciated by the masses. Thus one must ask oneself, am I a hater or is there something fishy going on ?

The next article has a vast scientific study behind it. Here is the simple version, at the end a link can take you to the bigger and more detailed picture.

Last summer it was “Blurred Lines.” This summer it’s “Fancy.” Every year, there’s a new song that we all hate until we don’t anymore (see: playcounts). And it turns out that’s because we were brainwashed to like them.

Research suggests that repeated exposure is a much more surefire way of getting the general public to like a song than writing one that suits their taste. Based on an fMRI study in 2011, we now know that the emotional centers of the brain — including the reward centers — are more active when people hear songs they’ve been played before. In fact, those brain areas are more active even than when people hear unfamiliar songs that are far better fits with their musical taste.

This happens more often than you might think. After a couple dozen unintentional listens, many of us may find ourselves changing our initial opinions about a song — eventually admitting that, really, Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” isn’t as awful as it sounds. PBS’ Idea Channel‘s Mike Rugnetta explains, it’s akin to a musical “Stockholm syndrome,” a term used originally by criminologist Nils Bejerot to describe a phenomenon in which victims of kidnapping may begin to sympathize with their captors over time.

Most people assume that they hear a song everywhere because it’s popular. That’s not the case — a song is popular because it’s played everywhere. It is technically illegal for major labels to pay radio stations directly to play certain songs, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The phenomenon is called “payola” (an amalgam of the words pay and Victrola), and it was rampant in the 1960s up through the ’80s, during which period the music industry was literally run by the mob. It still happens today, even though it isn’t as blatant. Labels pay independent promoters to “incentivize” radio stations to play their music, or create program caps to make sure a song gets enough plays to have its effect. There’s real neuroscience behind the strategy: If you hear something enough, you’ll start to like it.

That Stockholm effect happens with culture, too. The scientific term for this phenomenon is the “mere exposure effect,” discovered in the ’60s by Robert Zajonc, and it can apply to anything — images, shapes, songs or people. In his study, participants reported liking songs more the second and third times they were exposed to them. This same response occurred even when participants weren’t aware of any previous exposure. It seems then that people can easily mistake the fluidity of their ability to identify and fully comprehend a song with actually liking it. So once a song gets stuck in your head it may quickly transition from being irritating to being beloved. A good example of this is the inexplicable popularity of ear worms like the Black Eyed Peas’ truly heinous “I Gotta Feeling.”

Other scientific factors matter just as much, though. The context in which you hear a song is often just as important as the qualities of the song itself in communicating meaning, and the more times it’s forced upon us the more opportunities we have to make positive associations. If someone hears Ariana Grande’s smash hit “Problem” every time they’re out with their friends, they will likely start to associate it with good times and good feelings regardless of the song’s actual lyrics. Songs that the industry foists upon us constantly, then, have a far better shot at becoming popular than ones without the machine behind them.

Ultimately, we have way less of an idea of why we like the things we do. Numerous social and cognitive factors make it very easy for the pop music industry to gather an audience for artists they decide are worth promoting, and once we’ve been initiated to those artists, there’s no turning back. The industry knows that well, and they manipulate it constantly. But even amidst all that science and big business maneuvering, there’s one truth: If you play a really bad song too much, people will still figure it out for themselves.

Source of article : MIC

Scientific research : PLOSONE

Winner of 2014 Emmy for Best Commercial

Apple has had its ups and downs in advertising lately. But one recent unqualified creative success—last year’s much-loved “Misunderstood” holiday spot—waltzed off with the 2014 Emmy Award for best commercial at the Creative Arts Emmys on Saturday.

The spot, created by TBWA\Media Arts Lab and directed by Lance Acord of Park Pictures, shows a teen at Christmas who seems anti-socially glued to his iPhone, though it turns out it’s for heartwarming reasons. It beat out four other nominees for the prize. Two of them were Super Bowl ads by Anomaly for Budweiser—”Hero’s Welcome” and “Puppy Love.” The other two were BBDO’s “Childlike Imagination” for GE and Wieden + Kennedy’s “Possibilities” for Nike.

See all five spots below.

The results are a reversal from the Cannes Lions festival where “Possibilities” won gold in Film while “Misunderstood” took silver. The Emmys, though, are known for rewarding big crowd pleasers. The GE spot was shortlisted in Film Craft at Cannes but didn’t win. Neither Bud ad was shortlisted in any category.

Last year’s Emmy winner was Grey’s “Inspired” spot for Canon. Before that, W+K won four Emmys in a row—for Procter & Gamble’s “Best Job” (2012), Chrysler’s “Born of Fire” (2011), Old Spice’s “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” (2010) and Coca-Cola’s “Heist” (2009).

2014 Emmy Awards – Outstanding Commercial

Winner: Apple, “Misunderstood”
Ad Agency: TBWA\Media Arts Lab
Production Company: Park Pictures

Nominee: Budweiser, “Hero’s Welcome”
Ad Agency: Anomaly
Production Company: HSI Productions

Nominee: Budweiser, “Puppy Love”
Ad Agency: Anomaly
Production Company: RSA

Nominee: GE, “Childlike Imagination”
Ad Agency: BBDO
Production Company: MJZ

Nominee: Nike, “Possibilities”
Ad Agency: Wieden + Kennedy
Production Company: MJZ

 

Source : ADweek

Porsche Remains On Top In 2014 J.D. Power APEAL Study

Have you ever wondered what and how success and the appeal of a car is measured in the automobile industry ? or what are the markers ?

Here’s a study by J.D. Power APEAL study :

Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout—APEAL—is how influential data cruncher J.D. Power measures the ‘gratification’ a car owner experiences with each new model on the market. Researchers survey thousands of new car buyers across the country, asking them to grade their vehicles on 77 different attributes like fuel economy and styling, resulting in an average score that falls between 0 and 1,000.

For J.D. Power’s 2014 APEAL study, it seems that while new cars are coming with more technology and features than ever, the rise in owner satisfaction is not commensurate. The study shows that there isn’t much difference in satisfaction between owners of all-new models with the latest features and owners of models that have been on the market for several years, when it comes to things like the usefulness of the controls and functions in navigation, voice recognition, and other technology applications. These was a significant difference between satisfaction, however, when it came to more conventional attributes such as fuel economy and vehicle styling.

The brand with the highest score this year, 882 points, was Porsche. The German sports car brand has been at or near the top in the study for the past several years. Second was Jaguar with a score of 862 and third was Audi with a score of 858. Last on the list this year was Mitsubishi with a score of only 748. The industry average was 794, just one point below last year’s average.

 

One major surprise this year was the Dodge brand. Although it ranked 22nd overall, Dodge still managed to tie with Porsche for the most vehicles at the top of their respective segments: in this case, three. Porsche took out the Compact Premium Sporty Car segment with its Boxster, Midsize Premium SUV with the Cayenne and Midsize Premium Sporty Car with the 911. Dodge, meanwhile, took out the Compact Car segment with its Dart, Large Car with its Charger, and Midsize Sporty Car with its Challenger.

The results of the study are crucial for automakers. This is because the vehicles that are the most gratifying, those with the highest APEAL, tend to remain on dealer lots for shorter periods, command higher transaction prices, and are more likely to create owner loyalty when they are ultimately sold or traded-in.

 

Source: MotorAuthority

Inglorious Fruits and Vegetables – Marketing

 

 

Published on Jun 12, 2014

Intermarché launched the Inglorious Fruits&Vegetables, a film, print, poster and radio campaign, celebrating the beauty of the Grotesque Apple, the Ridiculous Potato, the Hideous Orange, the Failed Lemon, the Disfigured Eggplant, the Ugly Carrot, and the Unfortunate Clementine.

 

Source : Youtube