An advertising battle between the manufacturers of smoked viennas has ended in a truce, with Eskort withdrawing their “Simply” campaign from all media formats.
The spat erupted when RCL Foods, owners of the Simply Chicken brand, laid a complaint against the campaign waged by competitor Eskort in which they claimed that any product other than theirs “simply isn’t good enough”.
RCL Foods called on the directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board to find that the Eskort advert was disparaging and unfairly exploited and imitated the Simply Chicken logo.
It also complained that the advert contravened the Advertising Code of Practice by appealing directly to children under age 12 by telling them which product to buy. The advert shows a girl at a slumber party telling the host mom that she only eats Eskort viennas.
The campaign in question features various examples of Eskort products, including smoked viennas, presenting them as preferable on the basis that “... ANYTHING ELSE Simply ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH”. The word “Simply” is highlighted in red, carried in a font like the one used in RCL’s trademarked Simply Chicken logo.
RCL submitted that the advertising campaign deliberately crafted the word “Simply” in a manner that is likely to catch attention and recall their Simply Chicken vienna products to suggest they are inferior.
“The advertiser’s use of and reference to a crafted depiction of the word ‘Simply’ is disparaging, unfairly exploits and imitates the complainant’s logo and advertising, and is generally in breach of (the Advertising) Code, dealing with disparagement, unfair comparative advertising, exploitation of advertising goodwill and imitation respectively,” cited the complaint.
Eskort responded by denying having contravened the provisions of the code but noted that they had taken the commercial decision to withdraw the “Simply” campaign and relevant material in its current format. The withdrawal was already under way, they added.
Eskort also submitted that the TV commercial for their viennas in no way encouraged children to try to persuade their parents to buy the advertised product.
“It is made clear in the commercial that the young girl’s mother issued the instructions to only use Eskort, and that this decision was based on the girl’s preference for this product. Likewise, there is no suggestion that competitor products are inferior, and the complainant’s speculative allegation in this regard is unsupported.”
There is no justification for removing communication that allows strong-willed, individualistic females to express their preference in an appropriate manner.
— Eskort
“The intention was to portray a young, independent child, authentic and adult-like in her behaviour and demeanour. She was meant to be exploring new tastes and discovering her own, original style and preference. She was meant to communicate an ‘old soul’ with a little mischievous charm; and with no desire to compromise on quality,” Eskort argued, asking the ARB to dismiss the complaint.
In considering the campaign in line with the Code of Advertising Practice, the ARB found that Eskort’s voluntary withdrawal of the Simply campaign adequately resolved the dispute over the crafted emphasis of “simply” and addressed RCL’s concerns that it exploited the goodwill established for their Simply Chicken brand.
The Advertising Code recognises children aged 12 and under as impressionable and holds that food and beverage advertising should not mislead children about product benefits or undermine the role of parents or others responsible for a child’s welfare in guiding diet and lifestyle choices.
RCL Foods complained that the audacity of the child in the TV commercial insisting on Eskort viennas would appeal to other children and encourage them to behave in a similar manner, and also try to persuade their parents to buy the advertised product.
Eskort denied this, explaining that the actress was deliberately portrayed as somewhat an “old soul” expressing her preference for one product.
“There is no justification for removing communication that allows strong-willed, individualistic females to express their preference in an appropriate manner,” they argued.
While the directorate disagreed with the contention that the child comes across as an “old soul” with a strong voice, it found that the commercial did not undermine the role of parents in the selection of vienna-based hot dogs.
“The young girl is presented as having a clear preference but in a tone that suggests a picky eater, rather than one that dictates which grocery items get bought. There is no direct suggestion to children that they should buy this product, or that any decision not to buy it would yield negative consequences,” the ARB said.
“The reaction of the hosting mother clearly implies irritation with what could essentially be termed a fussy child, and it would appear that only the child views this behaviour as a virtue by terming it ‘discerning’.”
The directorate did not have to rule on whether the advert unfairly exploited and imitated the Simply Chicken logo because Eskort had already offered to withdraw it.
It dismissed the part of the complaint dealing with the claim that minors were targets.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.