Sugar Free Gold now running an aggressive marketing campaign. It has roped in two celebrities . Now Sugarfree is endorsed by the Tamil actress Simran in the South and Bipasha Basu in the North.
Watch the TVC here : Sugarfree
The new campaign is interesting because of two factors.
As discussed in my earlier post, Sugarfree has been positioned as an healthy alternative for Sugar. Now the new campaign takes a slight variation in the positioning from health to fitness. While both health and fitness are in the same level , fitness platform is more appealing to a broader set of younger consumers than health.
Health is defensive while fitness is proactive.
Another interesting factor is that the new campaign tends to associate the unique shape of the Sugarfree with body shape. I think its a smart move by the agency to link the shape of the bottle and a perfect body shape.
But there is something for the brand to worry about.
Recently I was talking to a doctor friend of mine and the subject of this brand came into the conversation. He mentioned that these products contain Aspartame which is bad for the health.
Sugarfree has different variants which have different ingredients. Sugar Free Gold have aspartame while Sugar Free Natura have sucralose which is a healthy substitute to sugar than aspartame.
I think that its the price that is not making this product category to expand. Although I am health conscious and a tea lover, I have a perception that Sugar Free will burn a big hole in my pocket. So unless the prices of these products come down, this product will not be accessible to a large mass of potential customers.
Hi
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some factual mistake...the advertisement is for Sugar Free Gold and Not Sugar Free Natura and yes you are write that this are two variants of Sugar Free- Sugar Free Gold has got Aspartame and Sugar Free Natura has got Sucralose. Regarding the safety aspect would like you to read the following:--it is from the official website of USFDA:
CFSAN/Office of Food Additive Safety
April 20, 2007
FDA Statement on European Aspartame Study
FDA has completed its review concerning the long-term carcinogenicity study of aspartame entitled, "Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassays to Evaluate the Potential Biological Effects, in Particular Carcinogenic, of Aspartame Administered in Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats," conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF), located in Bologna, Italy. FDA reviewed the study data made available to them by ERF and finds that it does not support ERF's conclusion that aspartame is a carcinogen. Additionally, these data do not provide evidence to alter FDA's conclusion that the use of aspartame is safe.
Aspartame was first approved in the United States in 1981 and is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners. When metabolized by the body, aspartame is broken down into two common amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and a third substance, methanol. These three substances are available in similar or greater amounts from eating common foods.
Upon first learning of the ERF study results, FDA requested the data from ERF to evaluate the findings. On February 28, 2006, the agency received only a portion of the study data requested. In June 2006, FDA asked ERF to provide the remainder of the study data initially requested and also offered to review pathology slides from the study. ERF did not submit additional data to FDA and did not agree to FDA's review of the pathology slides.
FDA could not conduct a complete and definitive review of the study because ERF did not provide the full study data. Based on the available data, however, we have identified significant shortcomings in the design, conduct, reporting, and interpretation of this study. FDA finds that the reliability and interpretation of the study outcome is compromised by these shortcomings and uncontrolled variables, such as the presence of infection in the test animals.
Additionally, the data that were provided to FDA do not appear to support the aspartame-related findings reported by ERF. Based on our review, pathological changes were incidental and appeared spontaneously in the study animals, and none of the histopathological changes reported appear to be related to treatment with aspartame. FDA believes that additional insight on the study findings could be provided by an internationally-sponsored pathology working group examination of appropriate tissue slides from the study.
Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.
Thanks Dhaval , I stand corrected and made the same in the post. there is still lot debates among doctors about whether aspartame is safe or not. thanks for the valuable info
ReplyDeletehey i read ur article and its quiet true apart fm what the explanations Mr. Dhaval
ReplyDeletethe hole in the pocket is very true
but u need not to worry when there are other products with sucralose available in the market like KAL-TAME which is a healthier option and affordable too
regards,
preity