LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:09:17 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
RE Lufkin's comments on the Nestle advertisement. (I've understood they
bought Carnation as a way to get into the formula market in the US which
they tried directly and unsuccessfully to do in 1969.) The US is in the
unfortunate position whereby two food companies (Nestle and Gerber) are
attempting to enter a market (infant formula) which has been dominated by
drug companies (Ross/Abbott, Wyeth/American Home Products, and Mead
Johnson/Bristol Myers). They do not have the contacts or cadre of detail
men necessary to use the traditional (and less visible to the public and
breastfeeding activitists) approaches via the health professions which are
easier to sneak by within the word (if not the spirit) of the WHO Code. So
you are correct that they must use other media to promote their products
and attack the ones their competitors use.

Sadly, it is difficult to separate the relatively unimporant issue of their
attempting to change brand loyalty among bottle feeders from their
attempting to enter into direct competition with breastfeeding. (Similar
dilemma for tobacco company advertising when their brand loyalty efforts
compete with people who prefer air to smoke--or worse yet when they get at
the children who they know are the ones who, once they start, will be the
ones who can't quit as adults.)

We recently had a radio program in Sweden on the national church youth
group's coming out in favor of the new Nestle boycott. The Nestle
representative for the relatively progressive Sweden said he did not know
why Nestle continued selling formula, since it gave them a PR headache and
represented only 1% of sales. A Swedish author made an interesting point:
establishment of brand loyalty is probably the reason. Infant formula gives
a feeling of quality and competence to the Nestle name. Once a mother
starts on the formula she is more likely to continue with the other Nestle
complementary foods (cereals and jars, very common around the world, though
not in the USA) which are a much bigger market. This in turn may give a
positive sheen to the Nestle name for chocolate, coffee, etc. later in
life!
Ted Greiner, PhD
Senior Lecturer in International Nutrition
Uppsala University
75185 Uppsala
Sweden

phone +46 - 18 511598
fax   +46 - 18 515380

e-mail  [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2