And they had to change it to “Red Bull gives you wiiings” because spelling counts I guess?
Comment on What metrics are deoderant companies using to calculate their "72hr protection" numbers?
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
It becomes false advertising when you prove them wrong in court. Few people want to do that so most ads are bullshit. Even if they do get proven wrong, the settlement money is typically peanuts to the impact their ads have on sales. Red Bull paid $13 million for their tagline of “red bull gives you wings” while making several billion a year.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
stankmut@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I was just reading about the Red Bull case the other day. It seems like they settled in order to make the stories all about how they ‘lost’ the ‘red bull gives you wings’ case, which sound like a stupid lawsuit, rather than go to court and have the media write about how Red Bull doesn’t do anything that a cup of coffee won’t do. They even still use the ‘gives you wings’ slogan.
Starbuck@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
From a marketing perspective, it sounds like a slam dunk. Someone wants to sue you, with lots of fanfare, saying that your energy drink doesn’t actually give you wings? Sure, come in at us. In the mean time, we’ll take out ads everywhere with fake apologies about not actually giving you wings.
lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
Red Bull commercials confused me so much in my younger years. Obviously it can’t make you fly, so what does it do?
Even into my adult years, I’ve found myself avoiding energy drinks, not just because they usually taste awful, but also because they trigger this subconscious feeling that they’re trying to scam me.