The documentary “Merchants of Doubt” directed by Robert Keener describes the unethical practices of manipulating scientific data to market unsafe products. It explains the use of public relations and media to divert the health risk involved in smoking in order to protect the industry. The documentary exposes how companies hire a third party, presented as credible scientific expert, to mislead people about the company’s unsafe products. Those people selling lies to cover for the company’s wrongdoing are called “merchants of doubt”. They create a sense of doubt in the veracity of the scientific data and results collected by the scientist. This strategy of creating doubt and confusion causes delay in government regulation. The documentary shows
When studies were shown not to support the film’s argument, they were occasionally argued to be irrelevant due to interested manufacturers funding (and possibly manipulating) the data within the studies for monetary gains. An example is when Dr. Mercola that the 90 studies that find aspartame to be harmless by Ralph G. Walton and the like, 90 percent of them are funded by corporate interest and that any independent studies find the exact opposite, insinuating fowl play in the
Coca-Cola 's introduction of New Coke in the 1980s demonstrates what happens when decisions aren 't supported by solid research. Coke revised the formula of its traditional brand of soft drink and lost millions in sales. By performing a study and determining
Melissa Rubin offers a very insightful analysis on something as simple as a coke ad that appeared in a Coca Cola sponsored magazine. Rubin takes a very cultural stance on her analysis, since the ad was created in such an eventful time in American history. “The ad suggests that Coca-Cola recognized the patriotism inspired by the war and wanted to inspire similar positive feelings about their product.” Rubin uses this timely bit of information about her claims to why the men in military uniforms are places out in front of the ad, and why less important members of society during the time are placed further back, or not pictured at all in the ad. Likewise, Rubin uses evidence regarding the industrial evolution occurring during the time the ad was
In 2000, Coca-Cola falsified results during a marketing research of frozen Coke at several Burger King restaurants (Day, 2003). Employees of Coca-Cola engaged in this questionable conduct in the expectations of increasing business at Burger King and convincing them
“A Coke is a Coke, and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same, and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it."(Andy Warhol, 1975) Regardless of its corporate reputation, the organizational performance and its social responsibility of Coca-Cola makes it loved around the world. Ever since its creation in 1886 Coca-Cola has been a household brand known globally for generations of families. I have to mention, of all the cases researched this is my least favorite not only because of my childhood love for the product because the ethical issues in one way or another always manage to resolve themselves not before further tainting the reputation Coke worked so hard to obtain. Most times, whether an organization is innocent of an unethical act, it becomes secondary to the suspicion of the original act. Almost as if the court of public opinion has the power to ruin the reputation of an organization based on an unfounded accusation. In spite of my loyalty after having ready the case, I do believe Coca-Cola to be flawed. The contamination scare in Belgium is a great example of a public relations nightmare. The slightest hint of impurity should have pushed Coca Cola into crisis management mode but they were slow to react, citing it a minor issue (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, (2011). It was not until local officials
In April 1985, Coca-Cola announced that it would be completely replacing its old recipe of Coke with “New” Coke. After several weeks customers started to protect this decision demanding that they go back to the original recipe. After three months, the Coca-Cola Company decided to reverse its original decision and kept the old Coke in production along with New Coke. Despite being reintroduced as Coke II, the new soda never caught on and was eventually discontinued entirely in 2002. Being called the most epic new product fail in marketing, the question remains: how could Coca-Cola Company make such a bad decision?
Big name brands such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper have both the means and the motivation to skew evidence and conceal facts, all in the name of maintaining their empires. When a “threat” to that empire emerged, for example, a recent proposed tax on soft drink beverages, the industry rose up collectively in order to oppose the tax.defeat it. This included sizable donations to key politicians, arguably a factor as to why the tax was indeed denied (Sanger-Katz, 1). This blatant usage of coercion highlights the way in which the soda industry wields its power and money to influence politics and get its way. Additionally, Coca-Cola, one of the biggest soft drink beverage brands in the world, paid dietitians and fitness experts to suggest
The advertisement for the Share-A-Coke campaign starts out with a girl going into a store and buying some Coca-Cola, and there is a look on the girls face that seems to look like she has an interest in the cashier. The same girl keeps going back to purchase more Cokes for herself and her friends or acquaintances. During this time all of her friends/acquaintances are having a joyful time and at the end of the commercial the girl finally invites the cashier outside by giving him a Coke with his assumed name on it just as he's closing the store doors. They turn the corner and everyone is there having a good time. Coca-Cola made a good campaign for share a coke by using pathos to get people to buy.
Did you at least get paid for sneak-advertising Coca Cola? I don't understand how this disgusting company is still allowed to advertizise at big sport events all over the world, when it should have been long since closed down by US government or UN for the systematic killing of union leaders in Columbia. However, the Rubel has to be kept rolling and the economy has to grow exponentially till all eternity. Who cares that our natural recources are depletable? Cosequently this will never happen. "To you immortals of tomorrow I predict today and here: Even before the next millenia begins, is the only God that everyone serves, the insatible greed" - Graf Krolock, Die unstillbare Gier (Tanz der Vampire, 1997). Awesome Musical btw. You should go and
VitaminWater, produced by Coca-Cola, was Coke’s strongest attempt to get the company in a more healthy light. VitaminWater was marketed to be an extremely healthy alternative to the other products the company offers. Many people bought this mysterious new bottle of liquid-health, some even brought it to the gym or made it part of a daily routine. Some skeptics raised an eyebrow, specifically the skeptics over at The Center for Science in the Public Interest. These guys did their own investigations into Coke’s claims that VitaminWater “supports optimal metabolic function”, “may reduce the risk of chronic diseases”, and is “specially formulated with nutrients that enable the body to exert physical power by contributing to structural integrity of the musculoskeletal system”. What CSPI found, however, is that VitaminWater had no actual evidence to support these claims and that all the claims seemed to be formulated in a way that would draw the consumer's attention away from the nutrition facts label, which clearly states that a bottle of VitaminWater contains upwards of 33 grams of sugar. (For comparison, a typical 12 fluid ounce can of Coke contains 39 grams of sugar.) After compiling their findings, CSPI took Coke to court, suing them on claims of false-advertising. CSPI claimed Coke could not, legally, market their beverage as “healthy” when the drink
Coca-Cola also wants their consumers to know that they have partnered with Boys and Girls Club of America, to help promote a healthier and more active lifestyle as a way to help combat childhood obesity. In addition to partnering with Boys and Girls Club of America, the Coca-Cola Company has also partnered with doctors and nutritionists to discover ways that they can offer healthier options within their product line. Coca-Cola’s advertisement also lets their American consumers know that by partnering with doctors and nutritionists, they have discovered natural and healthy alternatives to sugar that they have now implemented as a way to reduce
A pivotal article on sugar published by Harvard had the unfortunate issue that “The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.” (O’Connor) A scandal that recently broke and brought into question not only the modern American diet, but the food system as a whole. Science attempts to find truth in reality and to quantify in order to grant us a better understanding of our universe. This methodology produces an objective framework from which we(for the most part) agree to act from. This is why it is so dangerous to falsify data; you are in essence depriving others the ability to choose their own outcomes. Harvard’s sugar scandal is far from the only example of this occurring. In order to increase profits, British millers in the 1800’s conducted as studying comparing white and brown bread in order to convince the public both goods were of equal value to their health.
The first piece of evidence to take into account is the original advertisement by Coca Cola. The general idea of the ad is promoting Coca Cola’s new initiative to help stop diabetes. The video makes several points, including the new drinks that have little to no calories and smaller versions of popular sodas. The narrator also lightly touches on how Coca Cola has worked with schools to lower the amount of products sold there (Marketsmith Inc.). At first view, the advertisement seems to be a very positive one with a great message. Looking back over it however, it is easy to notice the fallacies throughout. Coca Cola states that the company is fighting to stop diabetes, but common knowledge suggests that drinking sodas or any form of empty calories is a large contributor to the disease. The commercial then goes on to state that 180 out of over 680 drinks have low calories or none at all. The number seems high until it processes that the amount of drinks with low calories is barely a quarter of the total amount of drinks Coca Cola has to offer. That’s not much. It may not seem like such a big deal that Coca Cola is withholding some information from viewers. People do that all the time when they meet new people. The problem is that