Tobacco companies notoriously were keeping their research data and communication strictly separated for almost 50 years with great success in attaining both, soaring sales and admirable public image. When public ´found out´ that ciggys are bad for you and that tobacco companies had lied all along, it turned in to such a huge fuzz since it was directly pointing to 300k deaths per year in US alone.

In other industries, where misleading info doesn’t lead to evident death, we could still be far from the day where often the socially most responsible (and generally most knowledgeable) party, the scientist, gets a say in Marketing Comm. In many cases, the smoking gun wont be there either.

Thanks for pointing this out Boo, it really makes one wonder…what one is wondering about.

“Poorly disguised value-add”
the thing is theres so little differentiation between one product to the other that every single one (differentiation) is played up to the max.

Enter the ad and brand agency which has to do it (play it up) for you and what you see is PROBABLY people who wouldnt understand the product as well as the people who made them in the first place.

The nutritionist at Nestle is wincing when they see the cutout you presented, but anywhere in the decision making process about image and brand marketing and advertising and all that, is their input even asked for?