Scientific Integrity

I recently got a subscription to the magazine Popular Science and was disturbed to find a two-page ad for a water distillation machine that is said to produce healthier water by increasing the hydrogen bond angle of the molecule. This high-energy water supposedly cures all sorts of diseases and keeps its drinkers in peak physical condition.

Now, this product might sound bogus because it's too good to be true or it's chemically unviable or it lacks proof of efficacy, or all of the above. In the case of this water machine, the ad is full of red flags beyond the basics, from ridiculous claims (drinking this water will multiply the battery life of your watch tenfold) to earnest assurances that it is not a con (the creator of this device received a grade of 100% in his college engineering course). An attempt is even made to turn scientifically-grounded criticisms of the product into a selling point: "Like Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense, anyone not generating controversy isn't doing much of anything."

An advertisement like this is perhaps itself a test for common sense, but while the untruth of it may be clear upon reading or investigating the claims made, the larger problem for me is that my trust and interest in Popular Science has taken a severe hit. Printing ads like this in a scientifically-inclined magazine is either reckless or mercenary, and I can't think of any positive explanation for it. I suppose the 'popular' in the name of the magazine has greater emphasis than the 'science'.

Raising Standards

I heard a McDonald's ad on the radio the other day that focused on the new quarter-pounder burger that is cooked right after you order it. Specifically, this on-the-spot cooking with fresh beef makes for a 'hotter, juicier burger', which certainly sounds nice. However, a disclaimer at the end of the ad adds 'hotter and juicier compared to previous quarter-pounder', which really changes everything because I've eaten pieces of cardboard that were hotter and juicier than a McDonald's quarter-pounder.

Now, this isn't to say I don't enjoy McDonald's food, but affordability is their big selling point in my eyes. Will a juicier burger cost more? If so, who will be taking the cost? In a similar vein, I've been irritated recently by a tagline in Food Line radio ads: 'Raising Our Standards Without Raising Our Prices'. Does that mean they're paying their employees less, or have they found cheaper sources that are somehow higher quality? In a situation like this, I'd prefer they keep their standards low.

I've enjoyed having music on the radio while driving around, but I'm still looking for an alternative because listening to ads that are blatantly deceptive gets tiring after a while.

Car Dealer Ads

A lot of the ads I hear on the radio are for a handful of major car dealerships around Charleston. As far as I can tell, they perpetually have major discounts and deals going on-- first there was a special Christmas sale, then a New Year's event, then Presidents' day sales that stretch to fill the whole month of February. In general, you can get a new car for $4000-6000 less than the sticker price by trading in your old car, spending your tax return on a new car, or just showing up with a decent credit rating.

A few factors make me distrust these ads. For a start, loud voices and aurally abrasive sound effects put me in a bad mood within the first few seconds of most dealership ads. Secondly, car salespeople as a group don't have a great reputation for honesty, and from the style and content of their ads, it seems that none of the local dealerships are trying to set themselves apart from this stereotype. Also, the focus on affordability rings hollow in a system where most corporations prioritize profit; a discount is much more likely to be a sales tactic than a good deal.

In any case, I'm happy to add these dealership ads to my list of advertisements that make me less likely to do business with a company. Overall, I'm surprised that with the amount of money people spend on advertising, so many ads come across as empty and annoying.

Food Buzzwords

There are a lot of words and phrases for enterprising shoppers to pay attention to in the modern world. Some are more common than others, but in any grocery store in the US, you might come across a product that is:
Organic
Low-fat
Sugar-free
GMO-free
Vegan
Gluten-free

It's a rare item that checks all these boxes, but some combination of these qualities is generally seen as a good thing. I was interested, then, to see a product that was advertised as pro-GMO. Unsurprisingly, this product was Soylent, a liquid meal replacement that is basically the opposite of slow food, the movement that champions the qualities listed above.

I wrote and then deleted a few paragraphs here about slow food vs pesticide-ridden, genetically-modified crops produced on an industrial scale. To make a long story short, I think it is worth approaching this issue with the future of a very large and mostly poor population of humans in mind. I can safely add this topic to the list of things I can spend a lot of time talking about, somewhere between insect farming and Lord of the Rings.

Over-the-top Advertising

I was looking to buy a can opener on Amazon and I found an $8 model that looked like what I wanted. There was, however, something off-putting about the product description. Instead of a simple "It opens cans," which was really all I wanted, it advertised:
"High quality parts will last for years"
"Hanging hooks for convenient storage"
"Sharp cutting disc effortlessly cut the sturdiest can"
"Beautiful design to complement kitchen decor"
"Made for Seniors and people with hand mobility issues"
"Perfect gift for wedding, bridal shower, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and birthday"

Instead of the standard 1 or 2 product images, there were 5 pictures showing the can opener from different angles, and even a picture of it opening a can as if to prove it can really do it. Also, the $8 price was actually an 80% discount from the previously listed $40 price, which smells less like a once-in-a-lifetime deal and more like an inventory that really needs selling.

When in doubt on Amazon, I usually look at the reviews to see what's up, and they told the same story as the rest of the page. The can opener had a 4 star average rating, split between a multitude of 5 star ratings (from people whose openers didn't break) and a large minority of 1 star ratings (from people whose openers did break). I suspect that a lot of the 5 star revies were paid for: they have the telltale signs of emphasizing selling points (I am an old person and the large knob made this opener easy to turn and it cut through cans like butter), saying it has no cons (having all 5 star and few 4 star reviews is suspicious), and finally an eerie similarity between many reviews.

I could, of course, be misreading the situation, but one of the things I learned during my summer as a freelance writer is that many online product descriptions and reviews are written by poorly-paid people who have never used the product or anything like it, and are instead given a list of selling points and a word count to fill out. I, for example, wrote reviews of the top selling compound bows on Amazon and didn't even get paid because I used the phrase "compound bow" too many times (it throws off SEO). In the case of this can opener, I would be willing to spend $8 on an openly mediocre product that just opened all of my cans and then broke after a year, but with the sketchy descriptions and reviews of this opener, it's not worth the risk.

Asterisk Advertisement

Most of the advertisements I see share a common language.

If a statement is followed by an asterisk*, I assume it's not true. I saw a box of cereal the other day that Reduces Cholesterol* (in conjunction with a healthy diet and exercise) in the same way that eating stacks of A4 printer paper Makes You Rich* (in conjunction with a high-paying job and good financial planning). I'm still jaded by the Unlimited* college meal plan I had two years ago.

Sometimes things are free, but a lot of things advertised as FREE aren't worth having. I can understand free samples, for instance: people try a product and those that like it might buy some. FREE samples, on the other hand, are iffy-- why is the seller so excited that their stuff is free? Free airport wifi is becoming a norm, but FREE airport wifi usually comes at the cost of email address or some other sort of registration.

For the full package of condescending advertisement, I like to see both of these used at once: This Summer at Restaurant, Kids Eat FREE*. What a time to be alive.

10 for $10

I went to CVS today and, while searching for discounted food, saw a "10 for $10" area. "Mix and match, 10 for $10," a sign read. It looked great until I realized that each individual item in the area cost $1 by itself. There was no discount-- I suppose the "mix and match" referred to the process of shopping in which a customer can buy more than one item at once and just add all the prices together for their final bill. Revolutionary, really.

Baked With Real Fruit

To celebrate the 4th of July, I got a box of patriotic Poptarts that had red filling and blue icing with white stars. As with many Poptarts, a message on the front of the box said, "Baked with Real Fruit!*" I eventually found the "*" on the back of the box. "Baked with Real Fruit!" means "Filling made with equal to 10% fruit."

A quick look at the ingredients list reveals that these Poptarts as a whole are made with "two percent or less of ... dried strawberries, dried pears, [and] dried apples." I'm sure this adds up to the advertised 10% of the filling. Interestingly, while each fruit Poptart contains the fruit advertised, they additionally all contain apples. The blueberry Poptarts also have grapes.

Having learned all that, I take issue with another statement on the front of the box: "Naturally & Artificially Strawberry Flavored." The ingredients don't get any more specific, simply saying, "natural and artificial flavor." Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure I'm not tasting the less than 2% dried strawberry in the filling-- I would have to be some sort of mouth sleuth for that.

Am I going to stop eating Poptarts? No, I just think it's interesting to know what's in them. I'm waiting for the first strawberry Poptart box that boasts "No Natural Products Included, 100% Artificial."

Return Policy

I ate a can of tinned pears today and noticed an interesting notice on the label: "If for any reason you aren't happy [with the product], we'll replace it or return your money ... all you need is the package and the receipt."

It just so happens that I wasn't quite happy with the product. The pears were good, but they would have tasted better in heavy syrup rather than the extra light syrup I got. I have the packaging (i.e. the can) and the receipt, and after checking the store policy online, I know that non-perishable foods such as tinned pears can be returned within 90 days of purchase.

Could I make a return in this situation? It seems too good to be true. My guess is that in addition to the packaging, the item itself needs to be returned, which is a bit of a downer because I ate the pears already. It's for the best, I suppose.

Savings

I have a receipt from Publix that says I saved $4.35 on my last purchase. What does that mean? Do I possess $4.35 more than I would without those savings? Probably not; I wouldn't have bought five microwave meals if there wasn't a handy five-for-$10 sale going on.

Did I, then, acquire $24.35 worth of goods and only have to pay $20.00 for them? This, I think is closer to the mark. Publix, however, got more than money from me. By buying items on clearance, I probably cooperated with the manager's inventory plans. I assume that discounts are used to guide what people buy and I'm generally happy to follow these guidelines in exchange for lower prices.

In any case, the world of digital sales has probably spoiled me a bit when it comes to 'savings.' When I'm buying a discounted computer game, I only consider it a good deal if it's 75% off or more.

Nutella Ingredients

The top five ingredients listed on my jar of Nutella are sugar, palm oil, hazelnuts, cocoa, and skim milk, in that order. The palm oil was the most surprising to me; now that I think about it, though, Nutella does act a lot like natural peanut butter, another oil-based spread.

Based on the label's nutrition facts, a spoonful of Nutella supplies 10% of my daily fat requirement, just slightly less than a spoonful of peanut butter. The tagline beside the nutrition facts reads, "Turn a balanced breakfast into a healthy one."

Student Businesses

I recently read an article in the school newspaper about two students who were starting a clothing company selling men's button-up shirts. Their two main advertising points are quality and "affordable prices for college students"; great ideas, but they're selling the shirts for $60 each. Fortunately, Emory students get a special rate of $40 a shirt.

Moreover, these students source their shirts from China-- one might think that this means a great profit margin, but these students say that they "refuse to allow their clothing to be marked up in price."

If these students are sincere, they're selling to a niche market. In my uninformed view, this company advertising affordability is like a thrift store advertising how brand new its products are: it's probably not true and the target market probably doesn't care.

Advertisement Technicalities

Avoiding advertisements is difficult to impossible in the modern world, so I like to make a game of finding reasons to not be convinced by ads.

I just heard an Old Navy ad: the "entire store is on sale for up to 50% off." The "up to 50% off" is the first red flag that this actually isn't a good deal. It could be that one rack of polos is 50% off and the rest of the store could have measly 5% or 10% discounts, and the ad would still be technically correct (the best kind of correct).

However, there was also a disclaimer at the end of the ad that gift cards and Fruit-of-the-Looms are not included in the deal.

en·tire

ənˈtī(ə)r/

     adjective
     1. with no part left out; whole.

This ad, then, clearly breaks the Standards of Practice set in place by the American Association of Advertising Agencies, specifically Creative Code 1.a.

I'm not, of course, going to actually do anything about this breach of standard, but Old Navy will not be receiving my customership for a while, a gesture made insignificant by the fact that I don't actually know where any Old Navies are in Atlanta.