<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &gt;&gt; Is Bottled Water Proof that Consumers are Daft?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.researchtalk.co.uk/rt/2007/08/01/is-bottled-water-proof-that-consumers-are-daft/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.researchtalk.co.uk/rt/2007/08/01/is-bottled-water-proof-that-consumers-are-daft/</link>
	<description>PODCASTS AND MORE TO INSPIRE FOLKS IN MARKETING, MARKET RESEARCH, PLANNING &#38; ADVERTISING</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:11:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ResearchTalk</title>
		<link>http://www.researchtalk.co.uk/rt/2007/08/01/is-bottled-water-proof-that-consumers-are-daft/#comment-6619</link>
		<dc:creator>ResearchTalk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:11:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.researchtalk.co.uk/rt/2007/08/01/is-bottled-water-proof-that-consumers-are-daft/#comment-6619</guid>
		<description>I'm not sure I agree that it's totally a question of media overkill, although there's a lot of this going around (the TV authenticity debacle being played out in the UK, for example). 

Remember the Dasani experience in the UK - whether or not the media created the initial fuss, the public soon voted with their wallets.

Maybe there needs to be more education plus much more effective product design and labelling.  It's evident that there are different classes of bottled water: spring-sourced, above type etc. But I suspect that communicating these differences through text on already busy labels only ensures that the differences get missed by your average Joe.

Call me a cynic but it seems to me that when companies really want to differentiate their products they generally succeed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure I agree that it&#8217;s totally a question of media overkill, although there&#8217;s a lot of this going around (the TV authenticity debacle being played out in the UK, for example). </p>
<p>Remember the Dasani experience in the UK - whether or not the media created the initial fuss, the public soon voted with their wallets.</p>
<p>Maybe there needs to be more education plus much more effective product design and labelling.  It&#8217;s evident that there are different classes of bottled water: spring-sourced, above type etc. But I suspect that communicating these differences through text on already busy labels only ensures that the differences get missed by your average Joe.</p>
<p>Call me a cynic but it seems to me that when companies really want to differentiate their products they generally succeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Juju</title>
		<link>http://www.researchtalk.co.uk/rt/2007/08/01/is-bottled-water-proof-that-consumers-are-daft/#comment-6618</link>
		<dc:creator>Juju</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.researchtalk.co.uk/rt/2007/08/01/is-bottled-water-proof-that-consumers-are-daft/#comment-6618</guid>
		<description>Actually, Aquafina is not tap water- although it's obtained from a public water source, it then goes through 7 additional steps of purification.  This was also indicated on the label.  IMO, the media is making a big deal out of nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, Aquafina is not tap water- although it&#8217;s obtained from a public water source, it then goes through 7 additional steps of purification.  This was also indicated on the label.  IMO, the media is making a big deal out of nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
