Cosmetics science cobblers on adverts
Discussion
People must be dumb if they fallb for it, you know the sort of thing:
Contains 2% polyamenolethyldeminidotyropenitos extract to reduce the visual appearance of wrinkled hair. It must work on the gullible public because the manufacturers use the same methods year after year. Hillarious I think!
Contains 2% polyamenolethyldeminidotyropenitos extract to reduce the visual appearance of wrinkled hair. It must work on the gullible public because the manufacturers use the same methods year after year. Hillarious I think!
vixpy1 said:
warning: contains BOSWELLOX!
I was joking with the bird about this tonight...the exact same commercial!
I mean.. are women THAT Gullible
Exactly, it's got to the point that the advertisers are actively mocking the intelligence of their customers. But, they will still part with hard earned cash to buy a sack of boswellox.
srebbe64 said:
78% of those interviewed expressed an improvement in the appearance of wrinkles. I wonder who was interviewed? Me thinks, advertising executives with a large grin on their wrinkled faces.
Look at the sample size, You find it is about 100 women. That is so low a sample it makes the results meaningless! compared to the tens of thousands sold each year.
It is truly amazing the gumph they come up with, yet somehow the buying public are completely unaware of the marketing crap being thrown at them.
Some of them are bordering on board room jokes between the bigger players, who can outdo each other with the most Boswollox in their adverts & get away with it
Good on them I say it certainly keeps me amused
Some of them are bordering on board room jokes between the bigger players, who can outdo each other with the most Boswollox in their adverts & get away with it
Good on them I say it certainly keeps me amused
My favourite example of the use of statistics in ads concerns the development of the Wiskas cat food commercials over the years.
Originally the ad stated "8 out of 10 cats prefer Wiskas".
Then it was changed to "8 out of 10 cat owners prefer Wiskas".
Then it was changed to "8 out of 10 cat owners who expressed a preference preferred Wiskas".
It seems Advertising Standards were at work here.
I often wonder why they don't come down more heavily on the pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo quoted in womens' hair care and cosmetics advertising.
Originally the ad stated "8 out of 10 cats prefer Wiskas".
Then it was changed to "8 out of 10 cat owners prefer Wiskas".
Then it was changed to "8 out of 10 cat owners who expressed a preference preferred Wiskas".
It seems Advertising Standards were at work here.
I often wonder why they don't come down more heavily on the pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo quoted in womens' hair care and cosmetics advertising.
Eric Mc said:
I often wonder why they don't come down more heavily on the pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo quoted in womens' hair care and cosmetics advertising.
Personally I get put off by loads of chemicals in products.
Especially the diagram ones for hair where little globules of magic formula 'restore hair from root to tip'. It's sodding shampoo FFS!
BTW - does anyone else notice Claudia's boobs in that advert more than her elastic face? It's very off putting, her bending over like that.
But perhaps it's just me who notices
Eric Mc said:
I often wonder why they don't come down more heavily on the pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo quoted in womens' hair care and cosmetics advertising.
The guy who does the Bad Science section in the Grauniad has been after them for ages, but apparently they are just vague enough to escape prosecution by the ASA.
apache said:
'and now for the science bit' YOU'RE BEING RIPPED OFF! those chemicals do not exist, it's fecking soap FFS
Unbelievably in the case of Boswellox they do exist. It is simply a trade name for an extract from the Frankicense plant Boswellia sacra which contains such stuff as...
11-KETO-ALPHA-BOSWELLIC-ACID
3-ACETYL-BETA-BOSWELLIC-ACID
4,23-DIHYDROROBURIC-ACID
ACETYL-BETA-BOSWELLIC-ACID
ALPHA-BOSWELLIC-ACID
see here for the full list www.chromadex.com/Phytosearch/Frankincense.htm
edited to add - for the chemists amongst us here is the stucture of alpha boswellic acid...
>> Edited by FunkyGibbon on Tuesday 5th July 09:12
philthy said:
BTW - does anyone else notice Claudia's boobs in that advert more than her elastic face? It's very off putting, her bending over like that.
But perhaps it's just me who notices
Somehow, I doubt you're the only one that's noticed
Phil
Well the BF didn't notice last night! (and trust me, that's saying something!
) Perhaps the boobage isn't aimed at men at all (much too subtle
) Perhaps they are trying to pull off subliminal messages to women: put wonder cream on forehead and all of a sudden obtain a decent pair of knockers at the same time. 
Raify said:
I often wonder why they don't come down more heavily on the pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo quoted in womens' hair care and cosmetics advertising.
The guy who does the Bad Science section in the Grauniad has been after them for ages, but apparently they are just vague enough to escape prosecution by the ASA.
Raify's right. They couch their claims with tiny text disclaimers at the bottom of the screen that protect themselves from people who think and ask awkward questions.
I was one of the people who complained to the ASA about Cillit Bang and the fact that they claimed that "Limescale is just calcium that sticks" (it's not, that's utter boswellox, it's calcium carbonate, an entirely different kettle of limescale)...I now see the ad is back on TV but with the line "Limescale is just calcium carbonate that sticks". Sigh.
The closest I got to nailing a cosmetics company on something was when they said "78% of women noticed a difference in just three weeks", or something like that, and their disclaimer said "65 women surveyed"...and 78% of 65 isn't a round number, meaning that somehow only part of one woman noticed a difference. But in the end I couldn't be bothered.
I don't get those ads for the yoghurt drinks either.
Feel better in two weeks or your money back.
Yeah right - I'm really going to wander back into Sainsbury's and demand my money back because I'm not feeling any different. And if I did, then who the frick would believe me
tsk. Are these so-called good-for-you bacteria scientifically produced, or are they naturally there anyway? If they are not, then why would I want to drink a load of chemicals? I just don't get it.
Feel better in two weeks or your money back.
Yeah right - I'm really going to wander back into Sainsbury's and demand my money back because I'm not feeling any different. And if I did, then who the frick would believe me
tsk. Are these so-called good-for-you bacteria scientifically produced, or are they naturally there anyway? If they are not, then why would I want to drink a load of chemicals? I just don't get it.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff