In Bitter Fight, Sugar Touts Self As The Natural Choice
Campaign takes aim at Splenda, but doesn't mention it by name.

By Sonia Reyes
September 25, 2006
BRANDWEEK

For years, Splenda and other artificial sweeteners have eaten into the market share for sugar, but now the industry is retaliating with a bitter campaign casting itself as a natural food made from "living plants, not chemical plants."

The Washington-based Sugar Association, which represents producers and growers, last week launched the first leg of a four-month television, print and radio effort, via Marriner Marketing, Columbia, Md.

While the prior year's campaign touted sugar's heritage and how it brings families together, the new initiative reflects a more aggressive posture that stresses sugar is natural and has only 15 calories per teaspoon.

A new print ad from Marriner shows a cup of sugar and explains: "We never put chemical additives or other ingredients in real all-natural sugar." Another simply says: "Naturalicious. Always beats chemicalicious."

Bill Mitchell, creative director at Marriner, said the industry is fighting back: "We're not trying to go to war. But artificial sweeteners have been demonizing sugar for a long time. Now it's time for sugar to tell its story."

Without mentioning the brand, the campaign takes aim at Splenda, which owns almost 60% of the U.S. artificial sweetener market. Marketed by McNeil Nutritionals, Splenda is driving "an intensely bitter competition in the category," said Don Montuori, publisher of Packaged Facts, New York.

Competitors like Equal, Sweet 'N Low and Nutrasweet are posting declining sales in the same time period that Splenda sales are up 10.6% to $206 million for the year ending Aug. 12, per IRI.

The Sugar Association holds a special enmity for Splenda because of the brand's "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" advertising effort that likened Splenda to sugar. "Their ads were misleading consumers into thinking that Splenda is natural and not a chemical," said Andy Briscoe, president of the Sugar Association." Splenda was not available for comment.

The fight has also extended into the courts. In 2004, the Sugar Association sued McNeil for false advertising and unfair competition. The association alleged in the lawsuit that "McNeil has also touted Splenda as a true alternative to sugar—a pantry staple food—that is healthy, tastes like sugar and is made from conventional sugar." (McNeil produces Splenda by chemically altering pure cane sugar to make sucralose, which has zero calories and is 600 times sweeter than sugar.) The lawsuit is expected to go trial in 2007.

Meanwhile, Splenda posted $52 million in media spending in 2005, per Nielsen Monitor-Plus, but has cut back dramatically this year to $6 million from January to July.

"They probably feel they don't have to make such a big advertising investment now that they own the category," said Michael Jacobsen, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.

The Sugar Association plans to spend 15% this year above the $4 million laid out for media in 2005.

Splenda also faces a spate of class actions in several states alleging consumers believed Splenda was a natural product. Moreover, the Center for Science in the Public Interest itself joined the fray last year when it conducted a survey that found 47% of those polled believed Splenda was a natural product.

"'Made from sugar,' certainly sounds better than, say, 'made from chlorinated hydrocarbons' or 'made in a laboratory' or 'fresh from the factory,'" said Jacobsen. "Splenda's artificiality may present a marketing challenge but that's not an excuse to confuse consumers."

Sugar sales growth has more than doubled this year. In 2004, sales were down 4.6%; in 2005, down 4.2%; but sales are up 9.3% to $1 billion for the year ending Aug. 12, per ACNielsen