A marketing gimmick is any novel feature, technique or idea primarily aimed at attracting publicity or increasing a price point while adding minimal intrinsic value to the product or service in question. Using a gimmick can be a fairly quick and lost-cost way of differentiating one brand from others in the same market. Consumers take notice of the brand not for what it can offer them but because of their fascination with novelty. In some cases, the attention gained through the gimmick can garner further attention as the discourse concerning it rises.

Gimmicks come in various forms. They often have no direct relation to the marketed object. An example would be a product add-on such as a complementary fashion accessory produced to promote a streaming service or a toy included inside a box of cereal. They can also be advertisements in which the focus isn’t a product or service but something abstract. Some brands, for example, produce commercials with interesting or odd visuals. The idea behind these tactics is to get the public talking about the advertisement, resulting in increased publicity and more sales.

Marketing gimmicks work by causing consumers to believe they’re gaining something special from purchasing a product or service. Often, the special gain comes in the form of an added feature or product. A loyalty card, for example, encourages consumers to buy more volume and buy more often with the promise of a free item after meeting a certain threshold. The gimmick may offer a free product, but to gain it, the customer may have bought more than they normally would. Sometimes, businesses combine such offers with other gimmicks, such as limited-time events, to encourage more spending.

Food, beverage and restaurant companies spend almost $14 billion per year on food advertisements in the United States. More than 80% of this food advertising promotes fast food, sugary drinks, candy, and unhealthy snacks, dwarfing the entire $1 billion budget for all chronic disease prevention and health promotion at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, these food companies often engage in “targeted marketing” to reach children, teens and communities of color with marketing for their least healthy products.

Food marketing negatively affects children’s and teens’ diets and health. It increases calories consumed, preferences for unhealthy product categories, and perceptions of product healthfulness.

The impact of food marketing on children

Exposure to the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages is a widely acknowledged risk factor for the development of childhood obesity and noncommunicable diseases. Food marketing involves the use of numerous persuasive techniques to influence children’s food attitudes, preferences and consumption.

Globally, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has risen dramatically amongst children aged 5–19 years, from 4% in 1975 to 18% in 2016. As obesity in childhood is known to track into adulthood, this highlights a cohort of 41 million children with the potential to become adults with overweight and obesity with serious implications for health. Obesity, a disease in itself, is also a modifiable behavioral risk factor for long-term noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), such as cardiovascular diseases and some cancers; thus, early intervention is critical.

Obesity is arguably a natural response to the modern food environment, where the marketing and advertising of inexpensive, highly palatable, energy-dense foods and beverages is omnipresent. The techniques used to market unhealthy foods to children are extensive, sophisticated and persuasive and target different vehicles of promotion (e.g., television) via varying marketing techniques (e.g., product placement). Analysis of children’s environments indicates persuasive marketing has a particularly strong presence on television, websites and games and extends its promotion to supermarkets and outside schools, resulting in minimal uncommercialised space.

WHO has released a new guideline on policies to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing. The guideline recommends countries implement comprehensive mandatory policies to protect children of all ages from the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages that are high in saturated fatty acids, trans-fatty acids, free sugars and/or salt.

More than 10 years after Member States endorsed WHO’s recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children in 2010, children continue to be exposed to powerful marketing of HFSS foods and non-alcoholic beverages, consumption of which is associated with negative health effects.

The updated recommendation is based on the findings of reviews of recent evidence, including how exposure to and the power of food marketing affects children’s health, eating behaviors, and food-related attitudes and beliefs. In short, food marketing remains a threat to public health and continues to negatively affect children’s food choices, intended choices and their dietary intake. It also negatively influences the development of children’s norms about food consumption.

The recommendation is also based on a systematic review of the evidence on policies to restrict food marketing, including on contextual factors. Policies to restrict food marketing suggests are shown to be most effective if they: are mandatory; protect children of all ages; use a government-led nutrient profile model to classify foods to be restricted from marketing; and are sufficiently comprehensive to minimize the risk of migration of marketing to other age groups, other spaces within the same medium or to other media, including digital spaces. Restricting the power of food marketing to persuade is also impactful, which involves limiting the use of cartoons or techniques that appeal to children, such as including toys with products, advertising with songs, and celebrity endorsements.

How to recognize marketing gimmicks?

Nobody wants to believe they’re the kind of person who falls for marketing gimmicks — those pushy, transparent, often campy tactics clearly designed to part you with your money. Unfortunately, these ploys are more common, more effective, and often more subversive than you might think. Otherwise why would they be so enduring?

Marketers deliberately design gimmicks using psychologically-rooted principles to be unexpected, catchy, and persuasive. Their goals are to attract attention and create interest in a product or service the consumer would not ordinarily be interested in, or sell a product at an increased price point with little or no added value.

Some marketers employ very clever psychological tricks to persuade you to go against your better judgement. It’s not always subconscious either. Often with tactics like volume pricing, loss leaders and free items you’re fully aware of the plot and willingly buy the item anyway. But you, too, can use psychology to your advantage and become more deliberate with how you spend your money.

Write a list: Resolve to create a shopping list every time you run errands. As a rule, you can only purchase items on your list. Even if you encounter an item you genuinely need (e.g. shampoo, milk, etc.), you cannot buy it if it’s not on the list. This reinforces your discipline and breaks your susceptibility to even the most cunning gimmicks.

Do your research: Sales representatives are often natural conversationalists who work hard to position themselves as knowledgeable experts. Walking into these conversations with a good deal of product knowledge disarms many of their most effective tactics and reduces the possibility of being pushed into a product you don’t want or need.

Take your time: The rush of the purchase is often far more exhilarating than the product itself. This is thanks in no small part to the neurotransmitters, adrenaline and dopamine. Try giving yourself at least 24 hours between the initial impulse and the transaction itself. This allows your emotions to settle and gives you time to think things through.

Walk away from pressure: Listen to your intuition, if you feel like you’re being manipulated, you probably are. Don’t reward pushy tactics with your hard-earned income.

Be mindful about price and value: Price is what you pay, value is what you get.

Junk food makers spend billions advertising unhealthy foods to kids

According to the Federal Trade Commission, food makers spend some $1.6 billion annually to reach children through the traditional media as well the Internet, in-store advertising, and sweepstakes. An article published in 2006 in the Journal of Public Health Policy puts the number as high as $10 billion annually. The bulk of these ads are for unhealthy products high in calories, sugar, fat, and sodium. Promotions often use cartoon characters or free giveaways to entice kids into the junk food fold. On TV alone, the average child sees about 5,500 food commercials a year (or about 15 per day) that advertise high-sugar breakfast cereals, fast food, soft drinks, candy, and snacks, according to the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. Compare that to the fewer than 100 TV ads per year kids see for healthy foods like fruits, veggies, and bottled water.

The studies that food producers support tend to minimize health concerns associated with their products

In fact, according to a review led by Ludwig of hundreds of studies that looked at the health effects of milk, juice, and soda, the likelihood of conclusions favorable to the industry was several times higher among industry-sponsored research than studies that received no industry funding. If a study is funded by the industry, it may be closer to advertising than science,

More processing means more profits, but typically makes food less healthy.

Minimally processed foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables obviously aren’t where food companies look for profits. The big bucks stem from turning government-subsidized commodity crops—mainly corn, wheat, and soybeans—into fast foods, snack foods, and beverages. High-profit products derived from these commodity crops are generally high in calories and low in nutritional value. Ultra-processed foods, for example, lack fiber, micro nutrients, and healthful plant substances called phytochemicals that protect against heart disease and diabetes.

A health claim on the label doesn’t necessarily make a food healthy

Health claims such as “zero trans fats” or “contains whole wheat” may create the false impression that a product is healthy when it’s not. While the claims may be true, a product is not going to benefit your kid’s health if it’s also loaded with salt and sugar or saturated fat, say, and lacks fiber or other nutrients. These claims are calorie distracters, They make people forget about the calories. For example, tropical-fruit flavored Gerber Graduates Fruit Juice Treats show pictures of fresh oranges and pineapple to imply that they’re made from real fruit, according to a 2010 report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. In reality, the main ingredients are corn syrup, sugar, and white grape juice concentrate. Although the government is working to develop guidelines for front-of-package labels, no consensus has been reached.

Does misleading advertising have the same effect?

Misleading practices in the world of digital advertising have become increasingly prominent. For example, 17% of global ad impressions in April-June 2022 were found to be fraudulent. But the industry has more to worry about than fraudulent impressions, with misleading advertising another major cause for concern. Misleading advertising, which can range from exaggerated claims to outright falsehoods, poses a serious challenge to consumer trust and the integrity of the advertising industry itself.

Misleading advertising refers to the use of fraudulent or deceptive information in digital or traditional marketing to influence consumer behavior in a way that they wouldn’t have otherwise. This type of advertising can compel consumers to make purchases based on incorrect or misleading information.

False or misleading advertising can take various forms, including omitting crucial product or service information, and it applies across different advertising mediums such as magazines, catalogs, physical and digital advertisements, and websites.

But this is not just about outright lies or false claims. It can also involve more subtle forms of deception, such as presenting information in a way that the average consumer is likely to misinterpret, using small print to hide important terms, or making comparative claims without a clear basis.

Red Bull

Red Bull is a globally recognized energy drink brand known for its catchy slogan, “Red Bull gives you wings”. The brand has built a strong presence in the market through its unique marketing strategies and sponsorships of various high-energy sports and events.

In a notable case, Red Bull faced a class action lawsuit over its advertising claims. Benjamin Careathers, David Wolf, and Miguel Almaraz filed the lawsuit, alleging that Red Bull falsely advertised its energy drinks as offering specific functional benefits, such as improved physical performance and reaction time, that persuaded consumers to pay a premium price for the product. The plaintiffs argued that these claims were deceptive and lacked scientific backing.

Red Bull agreed in 2014 to pay $13 million to settle the lawsuit, although the company denied any wrongdoing or liability. As part of the settlement, affected consumers who had purchased a Red Bull product since January 1, 2002, were eligible for a $10 cash payment or a coupon worth $15 in Red Bull products. The company maintained that its marketing and labeling had always been truthful and accurate, and the settlement was to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.

While Red Bull remains a popular brand, this lawsuit brought attention to the need for more transparency in advertising claims. The case serves as a reminder for brands to carefully consider the accuracy of their marketing messages and the potential impact on their reputation and consumer trust.

Kellogg

Kellogg Co., a prominent name in the breakfast cereal industry, faced federal charges for falsely advertising the benefits of its Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal. The FTC announced that Kellogg had agreed in 2009 to settle these charges, which centered around misleading claims in their advertising.

Kellogg’s national TV ads claimed that eating Frosted Mini-Wheats could improve children’s attentiveness by around 20% compared to those who skipped breakfast. However, the FTC found that these claims were exaggerated. The study the ads referenced showed that only about half of the children experienced any improvement in attentiveness, and only 11% saw the 20% improvement claimed in the ads.

This incident serves as a reminder of how important it is for brands to back up their advertising claims with credible data, especially when they relate to health benefits. Misleading advertising can lead to significant legal consequences and damage to a brand’s reputation.

For Kellogg, this case resulted in it needing to adjust its marketing strategies and reinforce the importance of maintaining integrity in advertising. It also served as a reminder to the industry about the potential consequences of overstepping the boundaries of truthful advertising.

Johnson & Johnson

Multinational Johnson & Johnson is known for its wide range of consumer goods, medical devices, and pharmaceutical products. Among its most iconic products is Johnson’s Baby Powder, a staple in many households for decades.

Johnson & Johnson faced significant controversy over its Baby Powder product. The company was accused of targeting specific demographics, particularly African-American and overweight women, for its talc-based Baby Powder. This strategy was pursued despite emerging concerns about the product’s safety.

Targeting specific demographics is a common marketing practice. However, when it involves a product with potential health risks, it raises ethical concerns. Companies must balance marketing strategies with the responsibility to provide accurate information about their products, especially when there are health implications.

Numerous lawsuits were filed against Johnson & Johnson, alleging that its Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. A Reuters investigation further revealed that small amounts of asbestos had been found in the company’s talc products, information that was not disclosed to the public or regulators. This led to a significant public backlash and legal battles, with Johnson & Johnson facing thousands of lawsuits that eventually prompted it to discontinue talc-based baby powder.

There are several types of penalties that a company might face for false advertising. If the false advertising constitutes fraud, the company could face criminal penalties. And if the advertisement was distributed by mail or the internet, the company could face severe criminal penalties for mail or wire fraud.

Companies may also face civil penalties for false advertising. Usually, false advertising laws only let a government agency sue for civil penalties. For example, in California, the state attorney general can bring a lawsuit to recover civil penalties up to $2,500 for each false advertisement sent to a consumer. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a federal agency charged with protecting consumers, can collect civil penalties up to $40,000. But some states let consumers collect statutory penalties. New York, for example, has a false advertising law called the General Business Law (GBL), which allows consumers to collect statutory penalties up to $50 per false ad. In a false advertising class action, those penalties can add up quickly.

Consumers may be able to sue for damages to recover money they paid for a product or service that was falsely advertised. A court can issue a cease and desist order, requiring a company to stop distributing a false or deceptive advertisement. The court could also require correct disclosures be made to consumers to inform them of the truth about the product or service.