Yesterday the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) in the UK ruled that a Weight Watchers (UK) radio ad featuring two people talking about diets had to be removed from the airwaves. Of course the news headline piqued my curiousity right away since I video blog for Weight Watchers (US). My gut reaction was to reserve judgment because I’ve met so many of the people behind the brand, and have a lot of confidence in them. But, if I ever felt a company I represented was misleading folks then I’d have to disassociate myself and walk away, because at the end of the day my personal integrity and happiness is what matters most.
So… I looked up the radio ad in question, and it went like this:
First person: “I don’t think of Weight Watchers as a diet because I can eat everything.”
Second person: “Yeah, I mean, I thought you had to be really strict for six months and barely eat.”
First person: “For me, sachets and soups just wouldn’t work. My objectives are: not to be hungry, to enjoy myself and not to feel like I’m on a diet.”
Voice over: “Weight Watchers is changing … Stop Diets, Start Weight Watchers.”
Aside from the fact that in the US we’d never call out satchets (pre-portioned flavored drinks), the ad is very closely aligned to the “Stop Dieting. Start Living” campaign that I’ve been part of since it launched at the beginning of 2008. Clearly the UK version of WW has slightly tweaked the tagline, but ultimately they’re selling the same message… a message I have personally endorsed, so I feel particularly compelled to respond.
This whole fiasco makes me understand the lawyers a bit more. I tend to laugh off their scrutiny and skittishness about the content we create / post online – but the truth is that they have to be able to defend every word spoken by the company. Since the food / health industries are highly regulated to protect consumers (which is a great thing!) … even in a rough economy they’ll always have job security. :)
Bottom line: The reason the ad was removed and deemed misleading is because there isn’t universal agreement on the definition of “diet”.
Is Weight Watchers a diet? Or … is it a lifestyle change?
It depends who you ask, and therein lies the grey area of litigation.
No doubt it’s a weight loss program, so if you define all plans that monitor or track weight as diets then WW qualifies. Personally, I think it’s more nuanced than that … the distinction to me is found in livability, nutritional accuracy, and the ability to maintain. The fad diets that invade my internet browser on a daily basis like the Acai Berry miracle drink don’t even come close to passing the litmus test. My personal experience with WW was that I lost the 70lbs slowly (averaging a little less than 1.5lbs / week) … during that year I learned a ton about how my body processed food, good nutritional info, what to look for on labels, and figured out how to incorporate exercise without it feeling like a chore.
Moderation and balance are the core principles of WW’s program, and so I feel comfortable with their marketing decision to highlight those philosphies and to contrast them against alternatives in the industry.
How would you define diet?





Last year at BlogHer I was introduced to twintastic mom promoters Janice and Susan of 





