Few things annoy me more than people who use really big words to make an impression without having a clear idea of what they are saying. Same thing goes for advertisements that throw pseudo-science at the consumer in an attempt to sound smart and advanced. At best, the ads are ridiculous and sound dumb. At worst, they can be misleading and dangerous.
-
Lab Life
A discussion and dissection of a most unique workplace environment - the laboratory.
-
False Advertising
- Date:
- Tuesday, 01 Jul y 2008 - 18:05 UTC
Take for example a recent TV commercial for a tanning salon, the kind with acrylic beds pumping out ultraviolet light (UV) that will toast you to a crispy bacon brown in just under 15 minutes. The commercial praises the health benefits (!!) of tanning beds in that one would have to consume X ridiculous number of pounds of sardines or drink X absurd number of gallons of milk to obtain the same amount of vitamin D that one can get from a 15 minute session in the tanning bed of doom (with apologies to Henry’s bunny).
What the commercial fails to disclose is that tanning under concentrated UV has more risks than benefits. Sure, you will get vitamin D (not without a proper diet, mind you, but it will help) and awesome bone density, but you will be increasing your chances at a miserable and expedient death from some form of skin cancer! Besides which, diseases affecting those with vitamin D deficiency are most prevalent in developing nations, not in the US (not to say that the deficiency doesn’t exist in the States. Of course, sadly, it does). Somehow, I doubt that UV tanning beds are going to be the glowing blue answers to the prayers of those suffering from real disease and real vitamin D deficiency. Proper nutrition, yes. An impeccable tan? Not so much.
The second example of bizarre advertising I have come across is much less harmful, but mostly nonsensical. A stick of men’s deodorant (one that smells pretty good, actually) states on the cap, “Responds to Adrenaline.” Eh? What does that mean? The scientist in me went into convulsions as I read this. Does the deodorant formula contain some sort of soluble hormone receptor? Nope. Corn starch (eww), yes, hormone receptor? No. Has the activity of the deodorant been specifically tested in conditions of increased adrenaline as opposed to overall stress? Possible, but I doubt it.
I get what the ad agency is getting at with their slogan – you’re stressed/exercising, your adrenaline is pumping, you start sweating, and that’s when the deodorant kicks in and saves the day. Makes sense, right? Scientific sense? Maybe not.
I understand the desire to make your product sound trust-worthy, sciency, and well-tested. That’s fine. Problem is, science isn’t that straight-forward. Science is full of alternative data interpretations and differencing experimental conditions. Very rarely is there a clear Yes or No outcome of a study. If advertisers really want to use science to sell their wares, I think they need to go all the way. Give the pros and cons, show all the facts. Yes, exposure to UV can help offset a vitamin D deficiency. Does that make it good for you? No way.
Last updated: Tuesday, 01 Jul 2008 - 18:05 UTC
-
Comments
-
I remember once when we “turned Nature over” to a historian of art, with the idea that this person would write a “take” on the journal from that perspective. Surprisingly (to us in the editorial department), the verdict was that the ads were colourful, interesting, etc. It was fascinating that, having always thought the ads to be a “necessary evil”, that from the point of view of a reader, they were experienced as fun and lively.
As ever, great post Anna.
On a ‘think globally – act locally’ meme, here in Scotland, one of our MSP’s who I know personally and have met a few times now, has only two weeks ago successfully had a Bill passed in the Scottish Parliament aiming to much better regulate the usage of “tanning salons” with regards to children and under 18’s.
See this page from Ken Macintosh MSP’s website and/or also here for more detailed information.
—
The following sketch springs to mind on your second example.
Maxine – I don’t dislike ads. I quite like many of them, in fact. I think creating ads forces people to be clever and innovative, and to study society to see what approach would be most effective. Successful advertising is a science in itself. What I dislike is the use of scientific terminology and scientific facts where they either don’t fit, don’t make sense, or do more harm then good. There are few people on this earth that need a therapeutic course of UV bed tanning.
Graham – Thank you! Very cool link about the new tanning legislation in Scotland. Tanning salons do target the youth market rather aggressively, at least in the States. It’s still fashionable and cool (thanks, Coco Chanel) to be tan. Personally, I find people who are golden brown in the middle of winter to be somewhat scary. Especially in Boston, where to become tan naturally even in the summer is a skill.
No apologies necessary — Beelzebun, Demon Bunny of DOOM
I am always amused by the ads for skin lotions or shampoo that always cut to some scientific-sounding gobbledegook about halfway through, not always with Jennifer Aniston saying ‘listen carefully, here comes the science part’. Anyway, I don’t think much of shampoo. Give me real poo any day.
Give me real poo any day.
I reserve the right to quote you on that, Henry.
The “now listen carefully” part is good. It’s usually when they tell you that the sleeping pills being advertised may cause drowsiness. Yeah. Overall though, those parts I appreciate. At least they make the effort to explain what the pluses and minuses are. Assuming of course that you and I are thinking about the same ads.
Assuming of course that you and I are thinking about the same ads.
Hard to say. The ads I’m thinking of usually have “and now with added [sciencey jargon] for extra [luster/shine/body] etc”
I suspect either tanning beds can’t be advertised in the UK, or it’s all done by little salons who can’t afford TV adverts – I’ve certainly never seen one here.
The worst pseudo-science advert on over here at the moment is one for some Olay product where we’re told that the pentapeptides (?!) in it have been proved to work (I think in reducing wrinkles) by some obscure sounding body. We see the actress on screen pull a dull looking bound document out of a filing cabinet and flick through it. Ah, yes – dull looking, kept in a filing cabinet – this has to be a scientific report and so must be true.
Thanks, Anna, for bringing up an issue that should provoke rancour in any scientist who hasn’t signed the red book.
I don’t dislike ads. I quite like many of them, in fact. I think creating ads forces people to be clever and innovative, and to study society to see what approach would be most effective. Successful advertising is a science in itself.
Well okay, we can all appreciate the artistry and the filmic and comedic creativity that goes into (some) advertising. I’ve always enjoyed the ‘evolution’ of the Guinness ads, although I drink Guinness because I like it regardless, and not because an expensive, slick marketing campaign kids me into thinking it is cool to do so. (However, I can’t speak for others.) And we know that too much of something that does you good (Guinness, vitamin D) is bad for you.
Now, I’m not suggesting that I smugly turn up for work everyday satisfied that what I do is absolutely virtuous and untainted. However, those who tout such tosh as ‘pentapeptides’ are not being scientific. They’re being company marketeers. If I chose to conveniently overlook the reams of negative data my work throws up, I’d have to heap such spin on any submitted manuscript that any editor/reviewer worth their salt would rapidly bounce it back, unless I’d made it hoodwinkingly convincing by falsifying data. But ‘cosmetic scientists’ don’t follow the peer review process. They blatantly disregard the Ingelfinger Rule and go public. This is not science, it’s proprietary pseudoscience.
The misuse/misrepresentation of science can be applied to all things – including science itself, and to religion. The anti-materialistic hypocrisy of Intelligent Design (hey, I didn’t bring it back up) is nothing more than marketed creationism. But it is effective because, as a public, we’re suckers for this kind of thing; we’re very good at lying to ourselves if we want something (or become convinced that we need something) badly enough, so others find it easy. (And occasionally I am prone to drinking too much Guinness.)