Since when did advertisers start feeling the need to footnote their ads? Every beauty product commercial is accompanied by hundreds* of disclaimers: "Tested on 500 women"; "Compared with a control group not using toothpaste"; "Penelope's eyelashes have been enhanced with false lashes". Best -- and most stupid -- of all? The ad we just watched for Garnier ultra prolife x with irritating Davina Mcall showed her squeezing a rubber ball to demonstrate the plumping of the skin cells -- and was accompanied by "dramatisation" at the bottom of the screen. Really, squeezing a rubber ball is a demonstration? No shit, Sherlock!
Has there been a spate of lawsuits in the UK of which I'm unaware? Are advertisers really interested in promoting the rigor of representing data? And why is it only on beauty products? Do these footnotes make the product more likely to work? Or do advertisers think it will convince us oh-so-cynical women to shell out our hard-earned pounds on their snake oil? Whatever the reason, I still hate 'em.
* Actual number of disclaimers three, based on a sample of one ad watched in the past 5 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
don't watch commercial televison then
You're absolutely right. I could restrict myself to watching BBC 1-4, but the misery of 'Enders, Casualty, Holby City, Holby Blue, etc would more than offset the occasional frustration of stupid advertisers. I will continue to make an exception for Torchwood and Mad Men though.
Post a Comment