Kind’s Specific Ingredient Claims Remain Airborne After General Comparison To Clif Bar Line Grounded
Executive Summary
National Advertising Division says a TV commercial Kind previously aired claiming “75% less sugar than the leading Clif bar” made an unfair “line claim.” But Kind says "ultimately this issue is moot" as it stopped using the "commercial (which takes place on an airplane) many months ago in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
You may also be interested in...
Clif Energy Bar Claims Need Substantiation When Together, Or Enter ‘Realm Of Puffery’ Separated
In third review in two years of ad claim disputes between Clif and Kind, BBB National Programs’ NAD determined Clif’s use of two claims in the same sentence in video ads makes an express claim and a superiority claim requiring substantiation and isn’t puffery not needing substantiation.
Supporting Denigrating Ad Claims: From Actors’ Facial Expressions To Fact-Based Humor
Like other comparative claims, say attorneys at the National Advertising Division’s annual conference, advertising that denigrates a competing brand must be substantiated. Advertising detailed previously in HBW Insight that compared nutritional products’ formulations and skin moisturizers’ effectiveness were noted as examples of denigrating claims.
Clif Bar Claims In Google Ads Clipped In Accelerated Review Of Kind Challenge
Clif Bar didn’t convince National Advertising Division a challenge by Kind is too “complex” for the SWIFT forum. NAD attorneys determined Clif didn’t support its claims of sustained energy and “better” performing ability.