Bogus science in tv commercials
Discussion
It's good old appeal to authority, which has been used to sell everything from fags to global warming.
oh and Crelm toothpaste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUOJzYtdTKI
oh and Crelm toothpaste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUOJzYtdTKI
What always amuses me is the "x people out of y agreed" - agreed to what? Without knowing the question it's completely meaningless.
All advertising that relies on a personal expression is suspect. Only when the claim is as a result of a recognised test (e.g. bleach killing 99.9% of bacteria) does it mean anything.
I suspect the place I work at is just as guilty of it as everyone else.
All advertising that relies on a personal expression is suspect. Only when the claim is as a result of a recognised test (e.g. bleach killing 99.9% of bacteria) does it mean anything.
I suspect the place I work at is just as guilty of it as everyone else.
Simpo Two said:
You mean because the generic name has a small letter and there are two 'f's in Bifidus?
Marketing people love graphs, it makes them feel scientific. I've seen them at it.
No, I mean it's completely fMarketing people love graphs, it makes them feel scientific. I've seen them at it.
king made up. It's just trying to sound scientific in the hope people have no clue. Cynical bunch of arse is what it is.Monty Python said:
What always amuses me is the "x people out of y agreed" - agreed to what? Without knowing the question it's completely meaningless.
All advertising that relies on a personal expression is suspect. Only when the claim is as a result of a recognised test (e.g. bleach killing 99.9% of bacteria) does it mean anything.
I suspect the place I work at is just as guilty of it as everyone else.
If they are selling something then complain. Such things must be supported with clear evidence. If they say 10 people out of 12 agreed that, then the 'that' must be explained. All advertising that relies on a personal expression is suspect. Only when the claim is as a result of a recognised test (e.g. bleach killing 99.9% of bacteria) does it mean anything.
I suspect the place I work at is just as guilty of it as everyone else.
From recollection, the 99.9% of bacteria is not supported scientifically. In fact in all tests the company first claiming it found it was 100%, but bottled out due to the possibility of a competitor discovering the 0.01% bacterium and putting that in their own adverts. Before they died of course from some virulent, but previously rare, bacterium of course.
Some Gump said:
Simpo Two said:
You mean because the generic name has a small letter and there are two 'f's in Bifidus?
Marketing people love graphs, it makes them feel scientific. I've seen them at it.
No, I mean it's completely fMarketing people love graphs, it makes them feel scientific. I've seen them at it.
king made up. It's just trying to sound scientific in the hope people have no clue. Cynical bunch of arse is what it is.ks mind.Some Gump said:
No, I mean it's completely fking made up. It's just trying to sound scientific in the hope people have no clue. Cynical bunch of arse is what it is.
The bacteria are real enough but I agree that the average Joe won't have studied microbiology, so yes, it's being used to dazzle and impress. But then you could argue that's what advertising is about.king made up. It's just trying to sound scientific in the hope people have no clue. Cynical bunch of arse is what it is.As for '99.9%' of bacteria killed, whilst sounding impressive, when you consider you are covered in billions of bacteria, 0.1% of billions is still millions. Or are we talking 'of species' rather than simple numbers? Who knows.
But the delight of a marketeeer with a 2.2 in Media Studies when he/she finds they can grab a bit of that really difficult thing they never did at school and get it on their CV before their spangly new product fails and they have to jump is stupendous. Even phrases like 'New handy-size pack!' gets them bouncing off the ceiling.
Derek Smith said:
If they are selling something then complain. Such things must be supported with clear evidence. If they say 10 people out of 12 agreed that, then the 'that' must be explained.
From recollection, the 99.9% of bacteria is not supported scientifically. In fact in all tests the company first claiming it found it was 100%, but bottled out due to the possibility of a competitor discovering the 0.01% bacterium and putting that in their own adverts. Before they died of course from some virulent, but previously rare, bacterium of course.
The 99.9% figure is backed up by tests. From recollection, the 99.9% of bacteria is not supported scientifically. In fact in all tests the company first claiming it found it was 100%, but bottled out due to the possibility of a competitor discovering the 0.01% bacterium and putting that in their own adverts. Before they died of course from some virulent, but previously rare, bacterium of course.
"When a marketing claim of “kills 99.9% of germs” is used, it may or may not kill the specific variety of bacteria or pathogen you need killed. By law, disinfectants must list the microorganisms which a product has been tested for and found to be effective against on their label, as well as proper dilution and directions for use. Check the label for the specific pathogens you need protection from."
Monty Python said:
"When a marketing claim of “kills 99.9% of germs” is used, it may or may not kill the specific variety of bacteria or pathogen you need killed. By law, disinfectants must list the microorganisms which a product has been tested for and found to be effective against on their label, as well as proper dilution and directions for use. Check the label for the specific pathogens you need protection from."
That's a good point. It might kill all of the S. aureus (generally harmless) and leave all the Clostridium (food poisoning etc). The latter also form spores which are fairly indestructible.If the blurb doesn't mention the harmful ones you have to wonder why.
It will be a hard job to ever beat this gem....
http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/dish.html
I actually remember the UK version.
http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/dish.html
I actually remember the UK version.
"Nothing gets to the site of pain faster" = Everything does it at the same rate.
"Clinically tested" = A failed nurse we employed put this on volunteers from our office.
"Traditionally used to cure joint problems" = Until the rest of the world realized it didn't work.
"A natural cure for..." = this does not work.
"As approved by the British skin foundation" = We paid about four people to have a meeting and gave them a name.
"85% of people saw result" = the stand confidence interval was 95% so technically we failed to prove it works.
I could go on.
"Clinically tested" = A failed nurse we employed put this on volunteers from our office.
"Traditionally used to cure joint problems" = Until the rest of the world realized it didn't work.
"A natural cure for..." = this does not work.
"As approved by the British skin foundation" = We paid about four people to have a meeting and gave them a name.
"85% of people saw result" = the stand confidence interval was 95% so technically we failed to prove it works.
I could go on.
Monty Python said:
Only when the claim is as a result of a recognised test (e.g. bleach killing 99.9% of bacteria) does it mean anything.
It's the same with hand soaps - 'kills 99% of bacteria' - watched a program which said you would need to leave the soap on your hands for around 6 hours for the concentration of the chemicals in the soap to have any effect, and its really the act of rubbing your hands in water which reduces the bacteria count significantly.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff