Corny Advertising: Fact or Fiction?

By Alexandra Corsi

ac986013@ohio.edu

“Innocent until proven guilty” is the credo the American judicial system follows. The saying can also be generalized to the public’s opinions about the media, especially advertisers and news reporters. The public trusts media outlets until they have a reason not to trust them.

When consumers turn on the television, open a newspaper, or hit “Enter” in the address bar to take them to a news website, they don’t expect to be fed lies by the media they trust that they are naturally inclined to believe, since they do not already have a reason to disregard the validity and credibility of what they say.

Consider the following advertisement.

Deception

The average, moderately educated consumer would be privy to believe this sort of advertisement. And why wouldn’t they be? The ad is well done, featuring a pair of moms hosting a children’s party, pouring fruit punch. Clearly the women are actresses, but there is a natural inclination to believe in the credibility of their conversation. Mothers, typically the natural caretakers of the family who are rather sensitive to the wellbeing of their children, are not commonly thought of as “liars.” So it is easy to assume the truth of the second mother’s assertion that high fructose corn syrup is no more harmful than table sugar, despite the research, including this 2010 study from Princeton University, that speculates otherwise.

Reading between the lines

But now, consider this fine print.

You have to look closely, but this caption is a game-changer for many viewers. The Corn Refiners Association clearly has a vested interest in the sale of products containing high fructose corn syrup and, naturally, are looking to abolish the negative view of this sweetener.

Google's role

It is also probably no surprise that when you Google “high fructose corn syrup,” the first result is the Corn Refiners Association website created specially for the pro-high fructose corn syrup public relations campaign, SweetSurprise.com.

The Princeton study, which advertises the negative impacts of high fructose corn syrup, isn’t even visible upon first glance. In fact, it’s not found until you reach the bottom of the page. And moms, who tend to be the primary grocery shoppers in the household and have to juggle the responsibilities of motherhood with their careers and social lives, are more likely to click on the first link to pop up (especially if it appears credible) rather than taking the time to scroll to the bottom of the page.

What happens when you click on the link to SweetSurprise.com?

There is no mention of the Corn Refiners Association until the very bottom of the page, in the form of a logo that is hardly legible.

Who is in the right?

The Corn Refiners Association clearly tries to hide their association to the campaign as an attempt to eliminate the source of bias. But is this an example of fair and just public relations, upholding our high journalistic standards of independence and reporting the truth?

Arguments can be made for both sides. The Corn Refiners Association is associated with both the website and the commercial. But at the same time, these logos are clear in neither the commercial nor the website, which, for the non-stop mothers these ads are targeted at, can be misleading.

What can we do?

As consumers, we have to be very picky when deciding which advertisements to believe. Doing more research never hurts. But at the same time, as future public relations and advertising professionals, we have to realize that there is nothing wrong with a biased message – in fact, all advertisements are biased – but we have to make it clear where the bias is coming from. Consumers have the right to know, and we have the obligation to tell them.