Here’s a partial transcript of the Australian TVC for Panadol Back & Neck:

“Back pain can really get in my way. That’s why I rely on new Panadol Back & Neck. It’s active ingredient works where I need it fast so I don’t need to hold back. Panadol back and neck is my choice.”?

What’s the “active ingredient” in Panadol Back & Neck? 500mg of paracetamol. That would be the same as the Panadol that first went on sale in the UK in 1956. So what’s “new”? The name & packaging.

Head & Shoulder’s have just started advertising a “new Hair Retain for Men” shampoo product (a subject near and dear to my heart). The active ingredients? The same as normal Head & Shoulders. So what’s “new”? The name & packaging.

I can understand the need to remove consumer’s uncertainty – a consumer stands at the supermarket shelf looking for a product that solves their particular problem. If it’s back pain, they want to find a box that says ‘relieves back pain’.

And I can understand the need to promote the benefits of a product – no doubt there’s some link between scalp health and reduced hair loss that the Head and Shoulders team can point to (but seemingly not on their website). And I don’t doubt for a second that Panadol Back & Neck relieves back and neck pain.

What’s not reasonable, however, is to imply that you have a new product with remarkable benefits, when it’s the same unremarkable product that you’ve been flogging for years. In doing so these companies are purchasing a short term boost in sales by withdrawing part of the trust they have deposited with us over the years. And with this kind of behaviour, there isn’t much trust left.