This reminds me of the thing about Deep Riverock there a few years ago where it turned out the American Version was just filled from taps.
If nothing else its a blatant case of false advertising Flano. You got any friends in the legal world. You should file some sort of class action lawsuit and go around collecting signatures like a regular Erin Flanovich for the destruction of your childhood innocence
[quote=“Julio Geordio”]This reminds me of the thing about Deep Riverock there a few years ago where it turned out the American Version was just filled from taps.
If nothing else its a blatant case of false advertising Flano. You got any friends in the legal world. You should file some sort of class action lawsuit and go around collecting signatures like a regular Erin Flanovich for the destruction of your childhood innocence[/quote]
Um Bongo not drunk in the Congo, Libbys soft drinks company sued for false advertising
Sue Pershore, a child of the 1980’s, has had her precious childhood memories shattered and ruined by a series of shocking revelations about the soft drink “Um Bongo”, her Lawyer has claimed today. This is after an advertising standards investigation revealed that Um Bongo is not sold and has never been sold in either The Republic of the Congo or The Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), meaning nobody in either of these countries drinks the beverage in question. This is despite the blatantly false claim of the long running advertising campain, being that “they drink it in The Congo”.
It has also emerged that a Hippo did not mix an apricot, a guava and a mango to create the beverage as Hippopotamuses lack the opposable thumbs necessary to pick the aforementioned fruit and mix them together. Nor did the same Hippo “dance a dainty tango” as Hippopotamuses are also unable to dance in such a fashion.
A Rhino did not say “I know, we’ll call it Um Bongo!” either as there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of a talking Rhinoceros. It is much more likely that a Libbys executive wearing a suit at a board meeting said those words, and not in such an excited tone.
Just as everyone thought all of the lies contained within the Um Bongo advertising campaign had emerged it was later revealed that Pythons and Marmosets played no part in the fruit selection process either. The passion fruit and the mandarin that are part of the recipe, along with the previously mentioned apricots, guavas and mangos were all in fact chosen for inclusion in the soft drink by focus testing many different ingredients on groups of children.
Parrots are not involved in the process of decorating the cartons “that the whole caboodle landed in”, rather a team of artists created the artwork that adorns every carton of Um Bongo. This artwork is not painted on either, it is printed onto a sticky plastic material that is then applied to the cartons by a large, cold and heartless printing press machine.
Upon learning of this flagrant case of false advertising Sue Pershore was devestated. Sally Barton, Peshore’s lawyer, released the following statement after emerging from court; “She loved Um Bongo so much that she sang the song from the advert very much as a child, blissfully unaware that what she was singing a pack of total lies. These revelations have ruined her previously happy memories of her childhood.”. After reading this statement Mrs Barton saw a speeding Ambulance zoom past, after which she ran to her car to give chase.
The President of the Democratic Republic of Congo has finally refuted claims that Um Bongo, a beverage produced in the UK by Gerber Foods Soft Drinks Limited, is widely consumed in his country.
President Kabila commented: “The words Um Bongo, Um Bongo, they drink it in the Congo have no factual worth, and I was shocked when I first saw the advertisement in the 1980s”.
Kabila claims that since first seeing the British commercial, he has commissioned three anthropological surveys to locate evidence of the drinking of the tropical fruit drink, but to no avail.
In a parting shot, Kabila commented that he has “not ruled out legal action for misrepresentation”.