Brands without their claims, leopards without spots?
Download this article as a PDF
The European Food Safety Authority has now reviewed the first tranche of functional health claims and, as expected, the news for many food and drink brands is not good. Of the first 500 claims put forward, only 30 per cent have been accepted. The tough line taken by the authority is highlighting how exposed many brands will be if they’re only as big as their claim.
The indications are that those that talk about dietary fibre, fatty acids and sugar free may find the outlook rosy. But everything from products promising cholesterol level reduction to taurine’s link to enhanced physical performance, may find they have to look hard at redefining their proposition to the consumer.
The territory the EFSA has been looking at is broad: anything that relates to the role of a nutrient or other substance in the functions of the body is caught in the review of general health claims. That includes psychological and behavioural functions, slimming or weight control, including reduction in the sense of hunger or increase in the sense of satiety or to the reduction of the available energy from the diet.
But should all of the now ‘old familiar’ brands that have brought phrases like ‘improved digestive transit’ into common parlance - with bags of client testimonials and loyal customers who couldn’t think of a day without their friendly bacteria fix – worry? Or has the job been done? Will losing their claims really affect the now well perceived efficacy? It feels like they are probably now in a pretty good place, as any great brand should merit.
Indeed, if M&S’s big New Year push on their ‘Simply Fuller Longer’ range would suggest that canny brand owners are staking their claims on motivating claims before the drawbridge comes up. The lesson? Get your message in early. Secure trial. Deliver a great product. Win loyalty and enjoy!
So while many brands are possibly going to have to think hard about the future we don’t think you can keep a great differentiated brand down. While they may or may not have their claims in future, the great brands have always had a big idea behind their brand and ultimately this can transcend reliance on a particular health claim because, as the phrase goes ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’.
Indeed, if one looks at Red Bull’s success, the simple act of coining ‘Stimulation’ drinks as a descriptor to set it apart from cheaper, less efficacious energy drinks at launch and the powerful yet simple ‘Gives you wings’ strapline, all supporting a fantastic product meant that the brand’s job was largely done. Maybe this is the model for the future? Simpler language, not scientific language to stake your claim, with a killer product where people can quite literally taste and feel the difference.
These new claim reviews highlight the need for brands to be bigger than a pure performance claim to ensure that they do not find themselves as leopards without spots under the steely glare of EFSA.
