IGOR is a sympathetic mascot, a small gentle gorilla, created by the Vachon Company to sell new Gorilla shaped muffins, obviously intended for children. IGOR even has his own Web site, whose evocative name is « Igor and me ».
To sell its product, Vachon setup a promotional campaign, well described on the Infopresse portal: « The promotional campaign sets Igor the gorilla in the limelight. Over 1000 Early Years Centres in
Also, 20 participating day care centres will win a group daytrip of their choice, a $3000 value, including animation with the gorilla spokesperson. » Promotional bags in question are also distributed to selected households; I got one at home. Perhaps you did too? This is nothing new; this method is often used to launch new products.
The campaign shocked the « l’Union des consommateurs » (
Now, at first glance, Vachon’s commercial practices do not seem to contravene article 248 of the Consumer Protection Act, which has historically been applied to advertising in traditional media, mainly television. A stated in article 90 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act, the use of advertisement directed at children is allowed on a container, a wrapping or a label. As far as the mascot is concerned, its use is clearly authorized by paragraph « l » of article 91 of said regulation, which states that « a character created expressly to advertise goods or services is not considered a character known to children if it is used for advertising alone ». Companies have been using mascots for ages to sell foodstuff to children. For instance, Tony the Tiger, Snap, Crackle and Pop, and Toucan Sam, mascots which are still used today as depicted in Kellogg’s
On the other hand, one can question the conformity of the booklet relating to IGOR’s history. Indeed, to me, this promotional material seems to be an « advertising insert », under the terms of article 88 of the application regulation; it is stated that advertisement may be exempt from the application of article 248 of the Act if it appears « in a magazine or insert directed at children » (paragraph « a ») AND if this insert is « FOR SALE or inserted in a publication which is FOR SALE » (paragraph « b »), which does not seem to e the case here. However, being neither jurist nor lawyer, I cannot pass judgment with certainty on these questions. We shall see; the « Office de la protection du consommateur » inquires into the matter.
In any case, lets look into the « health » content of the message instead, a must, given the population’s preoccupations in this respect for many years; presenting sweets as healthy food and especially affixing the « Health Check » logo, of the Hearth and Stroke Foundation of Canada, to the packaging and promotional material, amounts to shameless cynicism. One must question the product certification criteria that must be met to display this logo; would our toddlers be threatened of cardiopathy? Perhaps this foundation should be a little more selective with respect to the products on which it authorizes the display of its logo or revise its certification criteria. But again, Vachon is not the only producer of foodstuffs to promote the nutritional aspect of a product, for instance the fact that it contains whole grains, while avoiding granting too much importance to undesirable nutrients, such as sugar, salt and fats. Why then suddenly condemn the IGOR campaign so harshly?
What one should rather question is the opportunism of day care centres participating to the IGOR campaign. There is something shocking about a government sponsored organization accepting advantages, financial or other, in exchange for its help to market a product. This is particularly true when the product is sweets and the organization devoted to the well-being of children. In addition to this moral responsibility of the organization, let us not forget its legal responsibility, since article 5 of the Educational Childcare Act states an obligation to enforce an educational program « providing an environment conducive to the development of a healthy lifestyle, healthy eating habits and behaviour that have a positive effect on the children's health and well-being. »
I am not opposed to the fact that a child may, occasionally, eat sweets; we all did as a child, and most of us still indulge now and then. Besides, I may be wrong; IGOR muffins may be healthy food? But, if such is the case, why is the « Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids » opposed to their promotion in day care centres? Are the group daytrips and animation from which children will benefit sufficient reasons to tolerate the IGOR promotion in day care centres? Does the IGOR campaign shock you? If so, what is it that shocks you, Vachon's promotional actions or the complicity of day care centres? Talk to me! I'm eager to read your comments!
Post a Comment