Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19086

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Electronic Source

Silverman E
Abbott Labs, Breastfeeding & A Baby Formula Survey
Pharmalot 2011 Feb 7
http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/02/abbott-labs-breastfeeding-a-baby-formula-survey/

Full text:

For the past few years, Abbott Laboratories has regularly mailed a survey to new moms about breastfeeding and the use of infant formula. The marketing move reflects a vested interest, since Abbott sells the Similac baby formula, which recently made headlines after beetles were discovered in one of its factories, prompting a recall (see this).
The survey, however, comes from the National Institute for Infant Nutrition, a non-existent entity, which has caused a few quizzical moms to post questions and skeptical remarks on chat boards (look here and here). Not surprisingly, a few suspected the source was, in fact, an infant formula maker.
“I think this is a front for the formula companies. They should just be honest about it, imo, and offer to send you free coupons,” wrote one mom. And another offered this: “I have no problem filling out questions for HONEST feedback but to have a formula company be dishonest in its representation is pathetic.”
The issue, however, has largely flown under most radar screens, although a web site devoted to news for women last week ran a story that took Abbott to task. A critical piece on WeNews contended “the survey’s fake name and the obscuring of its real purpose rankled. Many moms, breastfeeding or not, would not go out of their way to help a formula company increase its market share…If there is no larger purpose to the Abbott survey than market research, why mislead respondents with the scientific-sounding mission?”
We asked Abbott about this concern and a spokeswoman wrote us to say the approach is taken to obtain an “an unbiased view of actual feeding and related behavior for infants…It is standard practice in consumer research to either use a third-party supplier or other title where respondents are ‘blinded’ to the actual research sponsor. Studies are designed this way so that authentic, unbiased information can be obtained.” We should note that Abbott has been collecting data for decades and even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has relied on its material.
However, the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy has a different view. The Abbott survey, acknowledges executive director Marsha Walker, is nothing new, but the approach taken by the company is generating growing discomfort.
“They send out these surveys to new mothers who think they are filling it out for other mothers in order to help their babies, when in fact it’s a marketing survey about buying habits, how the product is being used so Abbott can learn how to further market its formula,” she tells us. “It’s highly deceptive, because mothers don’t know they’re filling out a marketing survey. The bulk of the mothers who fill out that survey don’t know what it is…The survey is actually well known in the breast feeding community, but not to the general public. It’s really stealth marketing.”
WeNews asked Michael Hyman, a professor at New Mexico State University at Las Cruces who studies the ethics of marketing research, for his reaction and he says omitting a sponsor name to prevent bias makes sense, but a survey should provide a general description of the sponsor and how info will be used. “The issue here is about consent. I need to know enough to make an informed decision to participate,” he says. “Bottom line: Marketing research should never be done in a way that compromises the public’s trust.”
Interaction with the consuming public is only rising, of course, thanks to technology and, especially, as social media blossoms. This suggests a need for companies to be more attuned to how they present themselves and troll for info. So what do you think?