Overview:
A new decision from the NAD explores the claims made in ads for a spray odor and stain remover. Might claim substantiation survey research have made less of a stink in the face of a regulatory challenge?
‘If It’s Not Pooph It Stinks!’
In the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau, Reckitt Benckiser LLC challenged certain claims made by Ikigai Marketing Works, LLC and POOPH, Inc. for the POOPH Pet Odor & Stain Eliminator. The product claims to eliminate odors and stains from pet accidents.
Reckitt, whose products include a competitor to Pooph, challenged Ikigai’s claims that Pooph eliminates odors at a molecular level, eliminates stains, and works better than competing products. The challenged comparative claims included claims from a “Pooph Science” section of the product’s website, depicting a competitor’s spray that reaches only a soiled surface, without removing any underlying material. The narrator in the ad states, “Why waste money on any product that doesn’t totally eliminate the stink? … IF IT’S NOT [POOPH] IT STINKS!” Reckitt also challenged a video in which a Pooph representative attested to the product’s safety by spraying it into his mouth. As unsavory as these claims are, were they substantiated?
NAD Decision
The NAD’s position is that “elimination” of odor may convey to consumers that the product eliminates odors at the molecular level, as well as the level consumers can perceive. Although Ikigai submitted studies showing how the product works chemically, and demonstrating some odor elimination, the NAD found that the studies didn’t support a claim that the product completely eliminates smells.
Regarding the comparative claims, the NAD found that the tagline “IF IT’S NOT [POOPH] IT STINKS!” was a play on words that amounted to non-legally-actionable puffery. However, it found that “Why waste money on any product that doesn’t totally eliminate the stink?” and similar claims were not supported, because they conveyed that Pooph’s competitors mask odors rather than eliminating them, and Ikigai did not submit evidence that adequately supported this.
The NAD further recommended that the Pooph advertising should be modified to avoid certain implied claims, including:
- All other, or other enzymatic formula, pet or odor spray products are worthless, including products from Reckitt.
- All enzymatic formula or other spray products are unable to neutralize or eliminate bad smells.
- All enzymatic formula or other spray products only cover up odors.
- Pooph works better than all other pet odor spray products (or all enzymatic pet odor spray products) on the market at addressing odors.
With respect to the safety claim in which a Pooph affiliate sprayed the product into his mouth, the NAD found that, while not many people would be likely to do that, the claim was supported and could be continued.
Claims to Fame
While these claims, the brand name, and the humor used in the advertising are all catchy, catchy claims can catch negative attention from competitors and regulators. Keep your claims clean–and well supported–with reliable advertising claim substantiation research from MMR Strategy Group.