A Person Can Develop a Cold

A Person Can Develop a Cold

"I just wanted to say that I truly believe in your product, and . . . will continue to use it!!!!"

That comment from Patricia in Rancho Cordova, Calif., on Airborne's Web site summarizes how many loyal customers feel about the fizzy drink additive and its supposed curative properties.

But the Federal Trade Commission didn't use quite as many exclamation marks when it settled charges earlier this month about the company's allegedly deceptive advertising. In fact, the tone was not effervescent at all:

"There is no credible evidence that Airborne products, taken as directed, will reduce the severity or duration of colds, or provide any tangible benefit for people who are exposed to germs in crowded places," said Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The claim in question -- that the orange tablets designed by a former schoolteacher could prevent and treat colds -- appeared in advertisements that are no longer produced, the company said.

Airborne will have to pay up for that earlier advertising, though -- a nationwide total of as much as $30 million, including $6.5 million announced this month and $23.5 million as part of a previous related class-action suit settlement.

The cold-afflicted who purchased Airborne products between 2001 and 2007 have until Sept. 15 to apply for a refund. Claims will be processed by Oct. 15, according to the company.

"Consumers can feel confident that the advertising and labeling going into the marketplace accurately reflects what Airborne products do," said Airborne CEO Elise Donahue. "Airborne is the same product that millions of consumers swear by."

So the company, which touts its product as the "#1-selling immune support dietary supplement," has moved on, putting the settlement business and any cold-curing claims behind it.

How much will this dose of federal regulatory oversight hurt Airborne?

Potentially, not much. Thomas Maronick, a professor of marketing at Towson University who used to work at the FTC, recalled Listerine's settlement with the commission in the 1970s. That company had to spend advertising dollars to tell consumers that, contrary to previous claims, the mouthwash did not, in fact, cure colds and sore throats. But a subsequent survey showed that more than a third of consumers asked about Listerine still believed that the product could snuff out the sniffles.

Maronick doesn't think that Airborne enjoys nearly the same brand recognition that Listerine did, but he said that some people will likely continue buying the product. "If you think it's true, it is true for you," he said.

Then there's the any-publicity-is-good-publicity angle. Take, for example, Cocaine -- not actual cocaine, but the "energy drink" cleverly marketed as "the legal alternative" to the controlled substance. After a 2007 complaint from the Federal Drug Administration, Redux beverages, the makers of Cocaine, voluntarily agreed to recall the product. That's when the orders came rolling in. Jamey Kirby, the company president, said he was taking -- and having to refuse -- orders by the truckload. "So, yeah, it was good for business until we pulled the product," he said. "Then it wasn't good for business."

The drink is back on the market now, still as Cocaine, but no longer touted as the legal alternative.

-- Rachel Dry