Why the Hype Just Keeps on Coming
Increased scrutiny of advertisers' claims for their products is unlikely to do much to temper their overheated pitches
In 2005, a federal judge ruled as false and misleading a Listerine mouthwash ad campaign by Pfizer. The ad claimed that Listerine was as effective as flossing in fighting tooth and gum decay. The judge in that suit ruled that the claim even poses a public health risk.I admit, I fell for this one. Or at least took solace in my use of Listerine making up for questionable flossing habits (TMI, i know). It didn't occur to why I heard this for a bit, and then not again.
Anyway, it's easy to dismiss claims that are outlandish or are in something that we feel we know something about. It's when we're out of our element or accede to the power of authority (whether justified or not), that we can be taken advantage of. It's not just advertising, but government proclamations, "scientific" studies, accepting the "common wisdom", and so on. So who do you trust?
This ties in, somewhat, to another entry idea I had about the two biggest concepts I learned in college related to critical thinking: "correlation is not causation" and "advocacy is not analysis".
The latter stemmed from a professor's reaction to my initial approach to my thesis, and that sticks with me. Advocates are good at making things black and white, or at least have skill (the good ones) in minimizing negatives and staying on message about the positives. But that doesn't make them right! Analysis shouldn't be predisposed to an outcome, but that seems to be more of an ideal today than a common standard.
This ties in nicely with "correlation is not causation", as arguments can be made using spurious data points and faulty reasoning because of coincidental outcomes. Recognizing the importance of sample size is also imperative...
What's my point again?
Posts
2 comments:
It wouldn't surprise me if your point was to reference "Correlation is not causation", one of your favorite intellectual statements. Hey, at least you've got some! The closest I come is with "Sadly, we knew all along", which is neither brainy nor even an accurate AP allusion.
I don't know that this entirely fits the ad paradigm you describe, but I got pretty disgusted at Subway a few days ago, and it didn't have anything per se to do with the food...
"Make your sub double-stacked for only $4.00!"
No, I'm sorry, but fast-food joints are not allowed to advertise any add-on that is $4 with the word "only". It's actually gotten to the point that I very rarely partake in Subway's $8+ "value meals" anymore, as they haven't given me a reason why prices have gone up 20% over the last twelve months.
Actually, i thought of this tonight-- my point, in retrospect, is that i'm by nature an analyst, so if I never come off as as actually having a point or an argument, i blame it on seeing the gray of most issues. That would mean seeing the positive and negatives of both sides and picking a side, but not strong enough to argue for it, since there's only a small amount of information that stops it from swinging the other way.
Post a Comment