5. What was the competitors’ reaction to the launch of the MGO Manuka Honey System?

Kerry Paul
Nov 13
2 min read

Updated: Nov 21

In 2007, I, Kerry Paul, invited competitors to join me in marketing manuka honey under the MGO Manuka Honey System. Initially, the response was negative, and some even tried to discourage Manuka Health from marketing based on MGO content. I found this to be ironic since being transparent to consumers substantiated the unique health benefits of Manuka honey.

Over the next few months, a group of New Zealand competitors launched a global public relations campaign aimed at discrediting me and the MGO rating system. They felt their businesses were threatened by a scientific approach to marketing manuka honey. Instead of embracing the change, they chose to resist it.

As we began to take competitors’ market share and grow the total market, they attempted to undermine us by spreading rumours, offering special deals to our key customers, filing complaints with regulatory authorities about product claims or non-compliance, stealing staff, and sending bogus legal claims from their lawyers. We implemented a process to address these issues as soon as we became aware of them.

In response, I produced a tabloid-like newspaper, "Manuka Expose Vol.1," which was distributed to thousands of stakeholders in the manuka industry, both in New Zealand and overseas. The articles were factual pieces explaining why the MGO approach was far superior to UMF. The latter was based on a qualitative assay incapable of reproducing the same result from a common sample. Additionally, the rationale behind the numbers produced – 5, 10, 15, and so on – was difficult for consumers to understand. In contrast, the MGO approach is based on measurements from a quantitative assay based on concentrations of methylglyoxal in manuka honey. A straightforward transparent approach for consumers to understand.