It's been some time since I first visited this
topic. In this installment, I want to discuss advertisements from a particular sector—slimming ads.
[Many friends tell me 女人的钱最好赚. I'm inclined to agree with them, based on the fact that targetted slimming/beauty/cosmetic/fashion ads make up a sizable proportion of advertisement revenue in all forms of media except the internet. The only economic justification for such a phenomena is a healthy (if not excessive) profit margin, which supports the original assertion.]
Back to the topic. Slimming ads generally come in one of two forms: the before and after, popular among small/medium sized beauty salons, and the scantily-clad celebrity endorsed campaigns of the major players.
Disclaimer: I do not dispute the authencity of the pictures (i.e. no switching of pictures/massive photoshopping). Neither am I purporting that slimming agencies are defrauding the public intentionally. The following is just a critique of the crowd response to such ads.
Let's begin with the Before/Afters. I figure people will be impressed by the dramatic weight loss of Ms. X from using brand Y's slimming cream/pill/plaster/massage/diet regime. After all, the eyes don't lie, do they?
Clever advertisers often insert statements like "I lost 66 pounds and 66 inches after 66 days of treatment!" with such pictorial "evidence" to promote the efficacy of their product.
[It is never clear to me how 'lost inches' are measured. I suspect the average Jane is just as clueless as I am, so this makes for a rather 'flexible' unit of measure that should be taken with a pinch of salt.]
The implied message to the consumer is:
- "EVERYONE who use the product will see results like that."
However, a strictly rational person can only conclude that:
- ONE person has lost weight during the period she was using the product.
Let me explain the heaven-and-earth difference between the two statements with an analogy.
Say I show you a picture of rain falling on the Sahara along with the caption "43 mm of rain fell on this day." Can we therefore conclude that the Sahara is a wet place? Yet this is exactly the sort of irrationality that advertisers bet on.
Turning our attention to celebrity endorsement, we see the same story all over again. The ad screams:
- "Our product turns you into a babelicious beauty. Just look at celebrity Z!"
whilst the rational brain is whispering:
- "Celebrity Z is really babelicious and she happens to endorse this product."
We should note two important facts here.
- Celeb Z was already babelicious BEFORE she endorsed the product (that's why she's a celeb, duh!). Beauty does not a slimming salon make.
- Celeb Z's rice bowl depends on her physical appearance. Therefore she is strongly MOTIVATED to MAINTAIN her pencil-thin figure with or without the endorsement.
It is by design that advertisements should always 'suggest more than they deliver', because advertisers know that it is always the embellished truth that sells, never its plainer cousin.
Although there is a myriad of competing slimming products in the market, it is difficult for the consumer to comparison shop for the best value for money product. Why?
In order to determine the efficacy of a particular product, it is not sufficient to provide anecdotal instances of individuals who have seen results using the product. Instead, statistics of many individuals using the product must be available for a proper determination. Several useful metrics to quantify slimming products can include:
- average weight loss/$ spent
- average weight loss/time
- average total weight loss
- average failure rate
Unfortunately, such information is almost never publicly available. This means consumers are unable to make a rational buying decision. Which suggests that customers of a particular salon probably like their ads best/is a fan of celeb X, because there is just not enough information to make a carefully considered decision.
Ah, the irrationality of crowds.
If you ask me, the entire slimming industry is an exercise in making something out of nothing. After all, anyone (yes, all 7 billion of us) can lose weight just by remembering these three alphabets:
IOA.
Input - Output = Accumulation
Wanna get rid of flab? The immutable law of
IOA tells us to either decrease the input (count the calories!) or increase the output (exercise! 运动!), or better yet, do both. I'm sure that's what any doctor will recommend too.
Today's ponder: Why is it you have a "pair" of pants and only one bra?