Sugar Me

25 Nov 2006

My colleague Dominique sent around these great images from a campaign for sugar. Here’s a nice example of communication for a sector that uses a product that has been the target of many pressure groups. Sugar is and always has been (and most likely always will be) the root of all evil in food – next to fat. However, sugar isn’t bad. It’s not evil. Producing products with sugar in it isn’t a crime. Sugar can be delicious, but just like alcohol or cheese, you can use too much of it, and it’s only at this point that it does more harm than good. So where does that leave you, as a consumer of the substance? You can either ban the product and its derivatives from your life, that’s one option. Then you can start telling others not to use, that is called activism. Lastly, you can start attacking the producers of the products. That is called lame. Diseases and health issues aren’t caused by the existence of a product. They are caused by abusing and misusing the product. At this point, decent information is needed, not an anti-campaign. So. What can you do if your product or one of its ingredients is the victim of an anti-campaign? Right. Prepare the anti-anti-campaign. :)

Agency: Publicis Conseil
Thanks Dominique


Posted by Miel Van Opstal in Advertising, Campaigns, Marketing


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  1. » Archivo del weblog » Imagina un mundo sin azúcar

    November 26, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    [...] He visto en Coolz0r una campaña de publicidad a favor del azúcar (ahora que todo es light y sin azúcar) que me parece bastante divertida  ¿Imaginas un mundo sin azúcar? [...]

  2. Houtlust

    November 26, 2006 at 8:48 pm

    Bullshit Miel. Sure sugar is a pleasure but for a very short time. Eating sugar costs your body more energy that you get from it.
    There is no need for eating sugar if you eating healthy, there is enough of it in fruit.

  3. Guerrilheiro » Blog Archive » Eu não quero!!!

    November 26, 2006 at 9:07 pm

    [...] Via Coolz0r [...]

  4. Coolz0r

    November 26, 2006 at 10:10 pm

    I disagree. I enjoy a good piece of pie every now and then. A Mars, or a Twix…or even a good real Coke… All these things have sugar in them. And I enjoy every single one of them once in a while. I just think there’s no reason to demonize sugar because some people do not manage to control their urges. Those are just my two cents.

  5. Mike

    November 27, 2006 at 11:00 am

    Refined sugar is a pleasure for a short time: it causes hyperglycaemia. This sets off your metabolism to break down these sugars. As these refined (or simple) sugars are easy to break down, you soon enter hypoglycaemia. And that’s what causes the cravings (and potentially addiction)
    So if you take less refined sugars, but more complex sugars, you will have less of that effect.
    Coke, Mars, Twix have plenty of refined sugars. What has happened in the last decades is that the intake of refined sugars has increased by 30%, resulting in more obesity!
    The adverts tell you that sugar is essential for your well-being, which is a lie! Sugar is essential is essential for your well-feeling on very short term.
    My 2 €cent

  6. Greg

    November 27, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    Hello, the agency is Publicis Conseil

    Have a cool day

  7. Coolz0r

    November 27, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    Added! Thanks!

  8. Serge

    November 30, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    I tend to agree Mike and Houtlust. This is a typical campaign from an industry/lobby that feels threatened because consumers are not as easily fooled anymore. What annoys me most is that the campaign is beside the point: it’s not because society warns against the dangers of sugar, it should be immediately forbidden (in that case tobacco should have been banned ages ago), not that people who have a problem with the proliferation of sugar are trying to lock up bakers or people who eat sugar. You could call that the creative idea behind the campagin, but it could just as well be called outright deception and intellectual dishonesty. And talking about honesty: the industry should be more open about the potential harm sugar does (and it IS harmful) and also about the many many products to which sugar is added, often without the consumer knowing it. Sure, it is mentioned in small print in the ingredients list, but that can hardly be called a public health warning, can it?

  9. j

    November 30, 2006 at 7:42 pm

    Sure it is harmful but so is alcohol and we aren’t blaming alcohol producers for our intoxication issues… tabacco yes since it was brought up & it has a big warning with increases in taxes almost on a regular basis has it stopped … NO… I’m not a smoker or an alcoholic but I am over weight & it seems ridiculous to me to blame someone who is selling something bad for me that I buy it and consume it!!!! I like having the ability to decide for myself, its when people have a problem with being held accountable for thier own actions and continually need to blame someone else for thier own mistakes or lack of good judgement… there are plenty of alternatives out there or like previous messages choose not to consume!!!

  10. Mike

    December 1, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    ever been to the States. Don’t get me wrong, I love the States, but it is almost impossible to find food without added sugar. Even my coleslaw had sugar in it when I went to a restaurant!
    It’s not only about obesity (and often it isn’t sugar that is to blame), but diabetes is one of the disease of the near future! It will beat flus and common colds! I even think that in some regions in the world it already has.

    I remain with my previous standpoint: sugar isn’t for your well-being, it is there for your short-term well-feeling. And the fact that doctors and dietists are warning people about the potential dangers, doesn’t mean it is forbidden! The sugar lobby just wants to put itself in the victim role, so that many people can sympathise ;-)

  11. A.R.Yngve

    December 2, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Well, there is always honey.
    (Or are you gonna take THAT away from us, too? ;-P)