Turning the Tables on Activist Media

Our Client

A prominent direct-to-consumer dietary supplement producer

The Issue

The nature of this company’s direct-to-consumer business model leads to more interaction with its consumers, including consumers who want to report adverse effects. When consumers report their adverse effect claims, the company reports them to the FDA’s CAERS database; this database operates on a voluntary basis.The company’s concern for their consumers’ safety leads them to report every consumer complaint.

A well-known consumer publication began asking questions regarding the incident reports submitted to the CAERS database concerning one of our client’s products. The reporter inquired about the raw numbers of reports but failed to understand that while complaints existed, no actual safety or health concerns were ever determined by the FDA.

The Challenge

The supplement industry is under constant scrutiny by the media, the scientific community, and social media warriors, who attack the safety and validity of many products.

This particular company is well known for its direct-to-consumer advertising, so the potential for a story to go viral was heightened. Any negative story questioning the safety of a supplement can be detrimental to a company and its profitability.

The Opportunity

It was essential the reporter know all the health and safety facts and flaws with the federal reporting system in terms of the public database and the pitfalls when looking at a direct-to-consumer company. If played correctly, we could ensure the article was not about the company or product but instead it would raise issues with the FDA reporting systems for supplements and cosmetic products as a whole.

The Plan

Our first step was to identify the questions from the consumer reporter and to use those as the basis for a detailed fact sheet about the business’ history. Our observations included how their direct-to-consumer marketing worked, the demographic of their consumers, and defined the history and flaws of the reporting system used by the FDA.

Next, we researched the reporter. Reading every article provided in his online portfolio, we knew exactly the tone he liked to take and recognized his reporting usually had an agenda.

We then provided the reporter with the fact sheet and prepared answers to his questions. We also proposed and held an off-the-record meeting with the reporter and his editor to allow the client to explain the context and nuances in interpreting the federal CAERS database.

In the end, we had to be more aggressive. We helped compose a strongly worded letter to the reporter’s Editor and the publication from a well-known defamation lawyer that explained if the article went out in its current form, it would result in litigation.

The Result

The article was finally published, but instead of hurting our client, it depicted them as conscientious and dedicated to responsible scientific reporting despite a broken and unintelligible FDA system. The article highlighted their product safety history in contrast to their number of consumer-driven complaints.

The client appreciated our aggressive and matter-of-fact approach, and their product remained unscathed. An article that could have had grave financial impacts turned into a net positive.