What Happened to So Good Soy Milk
 | Advertising Effectiveness Awards | 1999 |
| Advertising Federation of Australia Limited, Level 1, 201 Miller Street, North Sydney NSW 2060, PO Box 166 North Sydney NSW 2059 Australia Tel: +61 2 9957 3077 Fax: +61 2 9957 3952 |
| Agency: Saatchi & Saatchi | Client: Sanitarium Health Food Company |
So Good Soy Milk Product Recall
A Remarkable Recovery
INTRODUCTION
This case study is about how a company�s worst nightmare�a very public contamination threat and a subsequent product recall�became a success story.
In spite of the adverse publicity of a contamination threat and being off-shelf for three weeks, Sanitarium�s So Good was able to recapture and grow its sales volume in an increasingly competitive soy milk category. Although all of Sanitarium�s beverages were affected by the recall, So Good is Sanitarium�s largest beverage brand and this case study will focus primarily on So Good.
Recent Australian experience with the Arnott�s biscuits product recall has shown that it is extremely hard to regain pre-recall sales and share. The potential risk of share loss was enormous in the case of So Good, because during its three-week absence from shelves significant trial of competitor brands took place.
Through an integration of public relations and advertising, Sanitarium and Saatchi & Saatchi were able to overcome this risk. Sanitarium was able to regain all sales because of the fast development and implementation of a communications strategy where messages were varied in response to changing consumer perceptions during the crisis.
The advertising was a major contributor to regaining lost sales of So Good and other Sanitarium products, and then served to support the image of the Sanitarium brand as a whole.
Thankfully, contamination threats are not common in Australia. However, this means that a lot of comparative information on this topic was not readily available for this case study.
BACKGROUND
What is so good?
So Good is a soy milk product. It is the second largest brand (after Weet-Bix) in Sanitarium�s portfolio and is the clear market leader in the soy milk category with a market share of 52%.1
So Good is seen by soy milk consumers as a wholesome, tasty, complete alternative to dairy milk. Like dairy milk, consumption of soy milk forms part of the daily routine�particularly for those who are lactose intolerant. It�s poured on breakfast cereals, added to tea and coffee, used in cooking and consumed on its own. In other words, for people who use soy milk it�s hard to live without. This means that when their usual brand was unavailable, So Good�s 530,000 regular users2 were going to switch.
So Good comes in two product formats (UHT/shelf stable and fresh/chilled), four package sizes, and five flavours, making a total of 23 SKUs. Therefore when the crisis hit, it was not just one line that was taken off the shelves, but a whole range of So Good variants. The recall also included three variants of Up & Go (a liquid breakfast) and two variants of Sanitarium Fruit Juice.
So Good has been sold since 1982 and although not the oldest, it is the best-recognised3 brand of soy milk in the category.
The soy milk market dynamics
Over the past few years, the soy milk market has seen steady growth. In fact, soy milk is recognised as one of the fastest growing food categories in Australia (1998 value was +16% up on 19974) and is growing much faster than total grocery food retailing (+5%) (Figure 1).
Much of the growth since 1997 had been driven by the introduction of chilled soy milk. Chilled soy milk is growing at a faster rate than UHT soy milk and has brought new consumers into the soy milk category.
There have been a number of new entrants to the category in the last few years including So Natural, Pure Harvest, Soy Life, Good Life and Nature�s Own. These new brands have offered consumers more choice and eroded So Good�s market share (Figure 2).
This market situation is a key problem for So Good, and it was exacerbated by the contamination threat and subsequent three-week recall. Loyal consumers had been gradually drifting away from So Good. The non-availability of So Good forced mass trial of other brands and the danger was that much of So Good�s customer base would be lost as a result.
The July Crisis
The contamination threat
On 29 June 1998 Sanitarium was faced with the biggest marketing challenge of its 100-year history. They had received an anonymous threat that their beverages had been purposely contaminated. This included Sanitarium�s So Good (UHT and chilled), Up & Go and Fruit Juice.
The first people called to the scene were the police. Sanitarium was under strict instruction to withhold from the public all details of information contained in the threat as it could jeopardise the police investigations.
Sanitarium had never experienced a contamination threat before. They had a crisis plan prepared but had not yet had a practice run. When the threat was received they recognised the need to act swiftly.
The possible damage
The contamination crisis constituted several potential threats to Sanitarium:
- Irreparable damage to So Good. Because soy milk forms part of the daily routine, loyal So Good consumers would be forced to change their purchase behaviour and trial competitor brands. So Good was already losing market share�particularly in UHT�to their major competitor, So Natural. There was a danger that So Good would never regain its lost market share. The financial implications were serious: any damage to the brand and the cost of recovery would obviously affect Sanitarium�s bottom line significantly. Also, it was not known how long the recall would go on.
- Damage to the whole Sanitarium beverage range. The threat affected all of Sanitarium�s liquid products: So Good, Up & Go and juices. Therefore, it wasn�t just So Good that needed to be protected, but the whole beverage range.
- Spillover into other Sanitarium brands. The public could have been confused into thinking that the contamination covered Sanitarium�s entire product range including cereals, spreads, meals and snacks. Damage to Weet-Bix, the company�s main brand, was the greatest concern.
- Negative perception of Sanitarium. In 1997 Sanitarium had invested heavily in their corporate image through a major public relations, advertising and sponsorship program. Negative repercussions for the Sanitarium corporate brand were a cause for concern.
- Total market growth might have slowed down. Potential new consumers of soy milk might have been put off, thereby damaging the whole category�s prospective earnings. This was also a major concern for Sanitarium�s four major retailers.
Distribution
Within six hours a massive recall program had been executed, with over 300,000 packs of beverage products taken off the shelves of supermarkets and convenience stores across the nation. These were sent back to Sanitarium�s state distribution centres, and then to their NSW laboratories for testing and destruction.
Internal organisation
An Emergency Response Team (ERT) was set up, consisting of Sanitarium�s senior management, public relations and Saatchi & Saatchi staff. Sanitarium�s CEO, Bob Smith, led the strategic handling of the crisis and became the figurehead for communication with the public. Martin Pamplin, Marketing Manager of Sanitarium Beverages, drove and coordinated the complete marketing process.
Advice was sought from marketing professionals of other companies who had previously been involved in product recalls of this nature. Peter Bush, former General Manager, Marketing and Sales with Arnott�s (and now a consultant specialising in crisis management), was one of many who were consulted. Arnott�s were unable to recapture their full market share until more than twelve months after their recall.
The key findings from the collective experience of the ERT consultants were:
- Open communication was essential to win back consumer trust.
- Communications should run across all stages of the recall, so that So Good consumers could witness the progression of events for themselves.
- Most of the lost market share can eventually be regained by a brand that has been damaged, but it is the last few share points that are the hardest to win back.
- Every possible mode of communication needed to be used to address the recall�with advertising playing a key role.
the campaign
Objectives
- Create public confidence in the So Good brand and win back previously loyal So Good consumers after they had tried competitor products.
- Recover So Good�s sales and share as soon as possible.
- Limit the impact on Sanitarium�s other products.
- Keep the public�s perception of Sanitarium positive.
The strategy
The central idea for the strategy was to let people know exactly what was happening, and when it was happening. Sanitarium wanted to create the impression of a totally open-book scenario with each of their consumers (although what they could say was actually limited by the constraints set by police). This meant communicating simple messages to consumers (so that they would become involved with the recall) and then measuring the impact of messages on consumers� attitudes.
The hypothesis was that maintaining a strong communication link with loyal So Good consumers would encourage them to switch back as soon as product was back on shelves.
The communications strategy needed to link with the news coverage and reinforce, step by step, the following �probable� points in the process:
The challenge was that the ERT could only guess how each step might unfold, the timings and what the police or the testing of product might reveal. Every communication had to reflect that consumer safety was Sanitarium�s number one concern.
Communication guidelines
There were a number of guidelines put in place by the ERT so that actions and communications in an uncertain situation would have some consistency.
- Explain what is happening. All our communication needed to explain the current situation with So Good. In most cases the advertising ran close to news or current affairs programming.
- Tell the public what Sanitarium was doing about it. Sanitarium wanted to communicate that they were doing their utmost to protect the public from any possible harm; for example, it was emphasised that all recalled product was destroyed.
- The CEO was to speak directly. It was the firm belief of the agency and other consultants that Sanitarium�s CEO, Bob Smith, was the best spokesman to communicate the message. This had the benefit that the face on the news (Bob Smith) was also the face in the advertisements. In addition, the advertisements were intended to appear more as public service announcements than advertisements. Lavish productions would have made the message appear to be a piece of marketing rather than an announcement for the benefit of the community.
- Communicate in real time. The advertising had to keep up with what was being communicated on the news, otherwise the news would dominate the consumers� perceptions. The situation was changing very quickly and the first two ads were written, shot and on air within two days of the brief.
- Monitor reactions and change the message in relation to quantitative data. Quantitative tracking research was commissioned on a weekly basis with Newspoll to ascertain when consumers had absorbed the information in each advertisement. Communications activity then moved on to the next message.
the Results
The results for the campaign are reviewed in two sections.
First, there are the results from consumer attitude surveys that demonstrate the effectiveness of the advertising (in each phase of the campaign) in communicating specific messages.
Secondly, there are the sales and share results, that is, the end result in the marketplace. These show that So Good regained 100% of its market share in a very short time period and continued to grow volume. The results in both sections are quantitative in nature.
Results: Consumer attitude surveys
Week 1: Findings from Newspoll Survey 1
Awareness of the recall had been well and truly established through initial PR. Prior to any advertising, awareness of Sanitarium�s product recall was already high at 89%. Coverage on news and current affairs programs, coupled with the removal of product from all major supermarkets within six hours, had ensured the message got across to all So Good consumers. Therefore, the advertising didn�t need to alert So Good consumers to the recall. Rather, it needed to develop their knowledge from that point on.
Advertising
Sanitarium had to be perceived as acting to protect customers. The first message to be communicated via advertising was that Sanitarium was being proactive in the interest of consumer safety. The other vital piece of information was that the recalled products were being tested and that all stock would be destroyed.
TVC 1: �Tested and Dumped�
Print: �Health is Priority�
Week 2: Findings from Newspoll Survey 2
Phase 1 was successful in protecting Sanitarium�s corporate image. Newspoll results revealed that consumers thought Sanitarium was concerned with their well-being, with 94% of people agreeing that Sanitarium�s motive for recalling the products was consumer safety. This was the primary message to be maintained throughout the campaign. Subsequent phases of the campaign were successful in maintaining this with later survey results of 96% and 94%.
The �Tested and Dumped� message had not been understood well enough. The second survey showed that the public had not sufficiently absorbed the �test and destroy� message from the first ad. Only 59% of respondents were aware of the testing and 48% were aware that Sanitarium was destroying all recalled stock. Clearly this message would need to be reinforced in subsequent communications if we were to successfully lead So Good consumers back to the brand.
Sanitarium needed to be seen as professional in their handling of the threat. After the first advertisement, 83% of consumers thought that Sanitarium had done a good job handling the recall. Although this was seen as a reasonable result, Sanitarium also wanted to improve on this score.
Advertising
The second advertisement reiterated the �Tested and Dumped� message to raise awareness of this action to a higher level. The advertisement also included a piece of new information�that new stock was being produced, and it would soon be available. Both messages were intended to reinforce consumers� perception that Sanitarium was doing a good job.
TVC 2: �New stock�
Week 3: Findings from Newspoll Survey 3
Awareness of Sanitarium�s actions had increased significantly. After the screening of the second TVC, awareness of Sanitarium�s �testing� and �dumping� had increased to 77% and 71% respectively (from 59% and 48% in Week 2). This was felt to be sufficient to move ahead, and this point no longer needed to be communicated.
There was increased perception that Sanitarium was doing a good job. By the third survey (two weeks into the recall), 94% of respondents agreed that Sanitarium had done a good job in handling the product recall (up from 83% in Survey 2). The rise in �good job� corresponds with the increase in awareness of Sanitarium�s testing and dumping activities.
Advertising
Alert consumers that new product was now available on shelf. With the previous week�s research confirming that consumers were aware of Sanitarium�s actions and believing they were doing a good job, the ERT decided any further communication was to �forget� the recall and to focus on new product availability. As the exhaustive testing regimen had found no evidence of contamination, Sanitarium wanted to reassure consumers that the product was safe to consume.
TVC 3: �We�re back�
Print: �New stocks�
Week 4: Findings from Newspoll Survey 4
The proportion of those aware that new stocks of So Good were available rose. The fourth survey revealed that awareness of the new stock had risen to 76% (from 60%). Sanitarium felt that this was a good result in light of the fact that many smaller independent stores had not actually received new stock at the time the Phase 3 �We�re back� TVC commenced.
Respondents were confident that the new product would be safe to consume. The survey showed consumer faith regarding the safety of the new product: in fact 95% of consumers were confident that the new stock would be safe to consume. This high score was the result of combined effects of earlier activities (in Phases 1 to 3) and the �open-book� communication strategy.
Advertising
Sanitarium had to reassure consumers that So Good was the same as it had always been. To achieve this objective it was decided to make an advertisement with a jingle that had been associated with the brand for some years. Qualitative research by Saatchi & Saatchi among So Good users found a high level of awareness of the past jingle.
The new �Busy Bodies� TVC, which is an updated version of an old campaign, communicated that So Good is a brand that is healthy for all the family. The TVC gave a reassuring message associated with past good memories of So Good and therefore an appropriate emotive message for the brand reassurance needed after the recall.
TVC 4: �Busy Bodies�
Weeks 5 and 11: Findings from Surveys 5 and 6
Consumers continued to believe that the new stock was safe to consume. In Survey 4, 95% of consumers said they thought the stock was safe to consume, and these high scores were maintained with 95% and 94% in Surveys 5 and 6 respectively.
Consumers started to forget about the recall. By Survey 6 (eleven weeks after the threat was received), only 48% of respondents were aware (unprompted) that Sanitarium had recalled its products. At the beginning of the recall, this figure was 86%.
On the basis of the Survey 5 and 6 results plus weekly sales information, Sanitarium decided that the communication program had been successful. A series of one-on-one interviews conducted in supermarkets were also carried out in late August as a final check. This showed that people believed Sanitarium had been acting responsibly and in the public�s best interests; and that the open communication policy had been appreciated.
Results: Sales and share
During the recall
Some people stopped buying soy milk. Total soy market sales did decrease during the recall period, signifying that there were some people who stopped drinking soy milk, or possibly drank UHT product that was already stored at home, when So Good was not available.
Significant switching did take place. The sales data also indicate that there was considerable trial of other brands. So Good�s average weekly sales volume fell from 381,000 litres, while the total soy market dropped by only 150,000 litres. Therefore, So Good consumers drank about 226,000 litres of competitors� products on average per week, during the recall. This is about 680,000 packs during the period that So Good was off shelf. Several of Sanitarium�s competitors benefited from increased sales during the recall (see Figure 3). Other brands benefited from So Good�s absence from shelf.
After the recall
Sales
So Good re-established 100% of its pre-recall sales eight weeks after the recall had ended. Total volume sales are shown in Figure 4. So Good recovers and gains volume after recall
The five key competitors (So Natural, Vitasoy, Goodlife, Soy Life and house brand)�which make up 40% of the market�did not achieve the volume growth from the pre-recall period that So Good did.
The key competitors have slightly increased their sales volume after the recall. However, this would be expected considering the rate of soy milk category growth. In other words, both So Good and competition have continued their pre-recall trend.
Sales lost to other brands have gradually been regained despite some Sanitarium stock and distribution problems.
Up & Go, which had been launched in early 1998, continued to increase its sales beyond the pre-recall levels (see Figure 5). This brand was particularly susceptible to damage because it was in its infancy and strong brand associations had not yet been formed.
Warehouse sales suggest that Sanitarium Juices have also recovered to their pre-recall sales levels; however, AC Neilsen is not available.
Share
A little over three months after the threat was made public, So Good�s market share of the soy milk category was two percentage points higher than pre-recall (see Figure 6) Weekly volume share, So Good v. key competitors
In comparison, Arnott�s market share had not fully recovered twelve months after their product was back on shelf. For the following months (aside from weekly fluctuations) So Good�s market share trend continued to increase.
So Good recovered its share in eight weeks
Share of the chilled soy category, the segment where So Good previously averaged only 33% share, has recovered so well that it was able to achieve 37% in four and a half months which was its highest market share ever reached (see Figure 6). This was critical for So Good�s total brand health for two main reasons:
- The chilled category is growing faster than UHT.
- Chilled is where new users of soy are entering the category.
So Good chilled recovers and gains market share (Figure 7)
Fulfilment of the objectives
Did the campaign create public confidence in So Good?
Yes. 95% of consumers thought that new stock was safe to consume.5
Did loyal consumers return to So Good?
Yes. At eight weeks, sales and market share for So Good reached 100% of their pre-recall level.
Did the campaign limit the impact on Sanitarium�s other products?
Yes. Only 3% of respondents thought Weet-Bix was involved in the recall.
Sales trends for Sanitarium�s non-beverage brands were unaffected by the recall.
Did the campaign keep the public�s perception of Sanitarium positive?
Yes. By the second week of advertising, 94% agreed that Sanitarium had done a good job in handling the recall.
95% of consumers felt that Sanitarium�s main motive for the recall was concern for consumer safety.5
OTHER FACTORS
Product
Although all stock was removed from shelves and destroyed due to the con tamination threat, there was no evidence that any contamination actually had occurred.
The new batch of So Good was exactly the same formula as the one before the recall.
No other soy milk products on the market were affected by the scare�only Sanitarium�s.
Price
When So Good arrived back on shelf, it was at the same price as prior to the scare. Neither So Good nor its competitors had any significant price shifts prior, during or after the recall campaign. In fact, one of Sanitarium�s specific objectives was to refrain from deep-cut pricing activity, to avoid consumer perception that something was wrong with the product.
Distribution and point of sale
The So Good range was off shelf for three weeks. On Day 1, as the products were removed from shelves, Sanitarium representatives placed public safety messages in their place to alert the public that So Good was not available due to a contamination threat.
By the following day, competitors had filled the majority of the empty So Good shelf-space (50% of the soy category) with their own product. The public safety messages were pushed aside. Therefore, it is unlikely that these point-of-sale messages contributed much to consumer awareness of Sanitarium�s actions.
When So Good came back on shelves, small flags were used saying: �New Stock�. This may have contributed to the awareness that So Good was providing new stock to stores and worked together with the �We�re back� TVC.
Advertising
Rather than cutting media to keep a low profile, Sanitarium boosted expenditure to maintain brand loyalty when product was back on shelves. It is indeed unusual to boost adspend when there are no products on shelf.
In total, the recall caused Sanitarium to raise its annual adspend by 230% (including the $900,000 spent on the recall). However, increased expenditure in this growing market was not unusual. So Natural, So Good�s main competitor, increased theirs by 200%.6
Public relations
PR was extremely important to ensure that there was a holistic communications effort from Sanitarium. As previously noted, the advertising strategy tied in directly with the news of the moment. Consequently the PR agency (Rowlands) was integral in the development of the communications. The messages distributed to the media were at all times synonymous with the information sent via advertising.
The media release campaign was sent in three waves:
- Announcement of the recall;
- Sanitarium were testing and destroying all stock;
- Sanitarium liquid products were back on shelf and safe.
Alongside the media releases was a media conference, in interview format with Sanitarium CEO Bob Smith.
In total, there were approximately 520 editorial media items pertaining to the recall Australia-wide. As the PR and advertising were designed to work hand-in-hand, how much each element contributed to results is not quantifiable. We must also remember that the PR/news coverage reflected the advertising messages, lending credibility to the advertising. However, as the majority of the news coverage occurred in the first week of the campaign when the recall was being announced, it can be reasonably stated that PR had the most influence in Phase 1.
Direct communication
Sanitarium had a well-used 1800 product information and enquiry line. During the recall Sanitarium employed extra staff to answer calls regarding the recall. In total, over 12,000 calls were received specifically relating to the contamination and recall. Staff were continuously briefed to communicate the same messages being carried through the PR and advertising.
Sanitarium has a database of 50,000 So Good users (collected through promotions and enquiries). They used this database to mail out a personalised letter from Bob Smith, informing those consumers when the new stocks of So Good were back on shelf.
Was it worth the investment?
Whether the advertising investment for the recall was worthwhile is very difficult to quantify. As with all estimates on return on advertising, it entails comparing �what did happen� with �what might have happened�.
�What might have happened� is where this case is different. In a worst case scenario the recall might have destroyed the reputation of the So Good brand. The categories of potential threats have been outlined earlier (see the section entitled �The July Crisis�) and it is perfectly conceivable that this damage could have cost Sanitarium many millions of dollars.
So, �what might have happened� covers a spectrum that is far wider than is usual in stable consumer goods market conditions.
�What did happen� is that Sanitarium spent approximately $900,000 on advertising during and shortly after the recall. The brand returned to pre-recall share and volume growth very quickly. None of the other beverage brands suffered and there was no negative rub-off on Sanitarium�s corporate image or other Sanitarium brands.
In summary, it appears that the recall did not affect the growth of the brand apart from lost sales when So Good was off shelf (see Figure 8).
Recall didn�t affect the annual growth of the brand.
Would the company have been better off if they had not invested in this advertising and saved the $900,000 (the approximate and conservative equivalent of the margin on four weeks of So Good sales)?
The only reference available is the Arnott�s biscuits recall, which had not regained full share after 52 weeks.7 Therefore it seems that Sanitarium has saved nearly a year�s worth of below-market-share revenue for the cost of four weeks� margin.
CONCLUSION
Sanitarium was able to turn their contamination nightmare (and possible damage to the brand) into a brand success story.
Recent Australian experience with Arnott�s biscuits has shown it is extremely hard to gain sales and share after a recall. The potential risk of share loss was enormous in the case of So Good because during its three-week absence from shelves, significant trial of competitor brands took place.
In order to protect future earnings, Sanitarium was particularly courageous in increasing adspend and communicating intensively throughout a period when So Good was not even on shelf.
The campaign is an example of research-led, multi-staged advertising�reacting to awareness and attitude shifts in the marketplace. Since it occurred over a very short time frame, it also demonstrates that commercials don�t necessarily need long runs to get the message across if the message is important.
The advertising was a major contributor to regaining full market sales and share for So Good in just a few weeks, and also served to support the image of the Sanitarium brand as a whole. By adopting an open, integrated communications strategy throughout a crisis and by being particularly disciplined in its messages, Sanitarium was able to maintain So Good�s health and recover sales quickly.
- Source: Nielsen (YTD w/c 28/6/98).
- Source: Roy Morgan BrandPlanner (September 1998)
- Source: Roy Morgan BrandPlanner (January�May 1998). Based on unprompted brand awareness.
- Source: All quoted sales and share figures are from AC Nielsen.
- Source: Newspoll. For more detailed information, see appendix.
- Source: AIM Data. 1997 v. 1998 total media spend
- Arnott�s is a loose comparison because of the differing positions of the So Good and Arnott�s brands.
- Source: Newspoll. Sample size: 400. Base: Age 18+, Sydney & Melbourne N/A indicates that the question was not asked in the survey.
APPENDIX: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH RESULTS8
Awareness of Sanitarium product recall | ||||||
| Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 | |
| Unprompted awareness that Sanitarium was recalling products | 86% | N/A | 85% | 79% | 80% | 48% |
| Sanitarium�s concern for consumer safety | Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 |
| Agreed that the main motive for the recall was Sanitarium�s concern for consumer safety | N/A | 94% | 96% | 94% | N/A | N/A |
Inspecting, testing and destroying all product | Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 |
| Aware that Sanitarium are inspecting and testing all/some recalled product | N/A | 59% | 77% | 71% | N/A | N/A |
| Aware that Sanitarium are destroying all recalled product | Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 |
| Sanitarium had done a good job in handling the product recall | N/A | 48% | 71% | 60% | N/A | N/A |
| Agree Sanitarium had done a good job in handling the product recall | Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 |
| Sanitarium were in the process of providing new product, and it�s safe to consume | N/A | 83% | 94% | 90% | N/A | N/A |
| Aware that Sanitarium are providing new stock | Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 |
| N/A | N/A | 60% | 76% | 71% | N/A | |
| New stock is safe to consume | N/A | N/A | 96% | 95% | 95% | 94% |
INDEX
| Advertising Partners 257 alpine resorts, Thredbo 217�39 breakfast cereal, Weet-Bix 67�86 Call Return, Telstra 181�99 Daewoo 37�66 electricity services, Integral Energy 241�56 financial services, NRMA 99�116 George Patterson Bates 271 healthcare products Imodium diarrhoeal treatment 165�80 J. Walter Thompson 13 Kosciusko Thredbo Limited 217 Listerine 13�36 | McDonald�s 200�16 Media Palace 287 mobile phone network, Vodafone 117�40 mouthwash, Listerine 13�36 New Products and Services awards 164 Olympic ticket packages, Stadium Gold 271�85 product recall, So Good soy milk product 299�319 rat bait, Talon 87�97 Saatchi, M&C Pty Ltd (Sydney) 117 Talon rat bait 87�97 Vodafone 117�40 Warner Lambert 14 |
.
 http://www.warc.com | � Advertising Federation of Australia Limited 1999 |
What Happened to So Good Soy Milk
Source: https://www.warc.com/fulltext/AFA/49323.htm
0 Response to "What Happened to So Good Soy Milk"
Post a Comment