Pinprick or Hemorrhage

What if there was a clone of this world of nutraceuticals, an identical twin of the nutraceuticals industry, that existed in a different time/space dimension, where practices, choices and decisions could be played out differently than they are on this planet? What could a nutraceuticals business exec learn and extract, to infuse their brand with a proprietary, competitive edge?

By Anthony Almada

Inset: For every positive testimonial that manifests online, on air, and in print, how many non-positive and negative experiences are encountered?

Setting: National Courthouse of Concerns and Appeals, Multiverse 23.aX

Date: March 2009

Court officer: “The honorable Grand Dame Justice Simmons. All rise…please be seated.”

Justice Simmons: “At issue is the selective use of solicited positive testimonials in online, satellite and cellular advertising. National Advertising and Messaging Rule Section 4.14(a), passed in March 2007, explicitly states: Any positive testimonials that are used in advertising a specific good or service must 1) be supported by appropriate, relevant testing, using currently employed standard measures of functionality relevant to the claimed use, 2) be conducted on the actual finished product offered for sale, and 3) be conducted under the same conditions and/or with the same target population as the advertising conveys.

“Also at issue is the alleged violation codified in Section 4.15(d) of the Rule, where it explicitly states: Any scientific or medical experts used in any form of advertising must explicitly state any conflicts of interest at the beginning and end of any advertising communications. This Section of the Rule also provides for subpoena of financial records of any spokesperson in the event false advertising or messaging claims are brought.

“The product at hand, Moodia Z, claims to a) reduce appetite, b) reduce suicidal ideation, and c) reduce body fat. The Defendant has failed to provide any credible scientific evidence to substantiate these claims. Evidence of ‘substantiation’ provided by the Defendant—studies in rats with a Moodia extract—has convincingly been demonstrated by the Plaintiff’s attorney to not be the same Moodia extract as in Moodia Z, nor the same extract mentioned in a satellite multi-cast by a specific university medical research team.Moreover…”

Defendant’s attorney: “Honorable Grand Dame Justice Simmons. My client appears to have been unfairly targeted. I ask you to review Evidence Item 34.a, which depicts eight other companies that are marketing a Moodia product, making similar claims, and offering similar testimonials. Six of these companies…”

Justice Simmons: “Mr. Hecht! Your client has been cited for alleged violations of the National Advertising and Messaging Rule. Because the target population to which the advertising has been conveyed is not rodents, neither wild nor domesticated, but rather domestic humans with presumed mood and adipose disorders, I find the use of these selective testimonials an egregious and intolerable commission of deceptive advertising. Moreover, the failure of your client to disclose the financial conflicts of interest of your client’s spokesperson, Dr. Willemena Perez—stock options and carbon nanodot jewelry—leaves me no choice but to banish your client from ever marketing a nutrition product, for any use, to enroll and complete nine months of mandatory advertising and messaging clinics, and to pay consumer redress of 50% of the gross profits of the company. The magnitude of redress and fines imposed by our earthly brethren equates to a pinprick, attempting to counter uninterrupted consumer economic hemorrhaging, which likely explains the incessant, predatory charlatanism that prevails. Not in my court, under my watch, Mr. Hecht.”