Print

Airborne was a top-selling product promoted as a cold and flu remedy, with packaging and marketing that implies but does not state that use of the product will prevent and cure common colds. The product was created in 1994 by Victoria Knight (a school teacher) and Thomas McDowell (a script writer), as was the clever but deceptive marketing campaign. Airborne’s ingredients include synthetic vitamins, herbal extracts, amino acids, antioxidants and electrolytes (often found in sports drinks).

The marketing campaign morphed chutzpa into $100 million in sales, highlighting a lack of scientific credibility behind product claims by promoting Airborne as “developed by a school teacher.”

The Airborne campaign back-story includes:

• Company names (Knight-McDowell Labs and Airborne Health Inc.) that misleadingly suggest scientific inquiry or expertise.
• Formation of a “clinical trial” company (GNG Pharmaceutical Services) that is a two-man operation with no clinic, no scientists and no doctors.
• Dubious claims about a “double-blind, placebo-controlled study” allegedly conducted sans clinic, scientists or credentialed personnel.
• A “clinical results” statement that posits data from a US EPA report next to unrelated product information, leading readers to infer a non-existent connection.

After Scientific American Magazine published an article, “Airborne Baloney,” the Federal Trade Commission initiated an inquiry and complaint (January 2007). The FTC stated the company founders “made false claims that Airborne products are clinically proven to treat colds.” An FTC press release (August 14, 2008) announced a $30 million settlement agreement had been reached. This was in addition to a March 4, 2008 class action lawsuit in which Airborne Health Inc. agreed to pay a $23.3 million settlement.

The Airborne campaign is a particularly egregious example of deceptive advertising, but Airborne is by no means the only bad actor. Confronted with the “growing use of disingenuous editorial content, deceptive commentary on blogs and other venues,” the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) was obliged to issue a stinging rebuke of “promotional tactics that signal a common thread of malpractice under the PRSA Code of Ethics and PRSA Professional Standards” (August 27, 2009).

Recent reports of deception in various guises and mediums include deceptive online practices such as “Play for Pay,” in which paid commercial messaging is presented as editorial content or commentary. Bloggers, for example, may post positive reviews of products and services in exchange for cash payment or free items, without disclosing that interest. This trend has been designated "false advertising" under Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rules.