Turbo2

Has anyone else noticed the number of telly commercials these days spouting claims based on the results of their commissioned market research? They usually add the details of the research involved in small print at the foot of the picture. I am always amazed how small the sample of people questioned usually is and how ridiculous the claims are. The latest example is that Flora spread advert with a no-mark TV chef driving around in a "cool" VW minibus.

The claim made is that the Flora spread advertised is the best-tasting on the market. Fair enough you might think: they may have carried out a 3 month national survey and public taste testing on all the popular brands on the market. They probably had tastings in the foyers of most of the supermarkets that we frequent. I would reckon on a sample of about 10,000 people would give an accurate result and a strong majority in Flora's favour would make for the basis of their TV advertising campaign.

B*llocks! According to the small print, the research is based on the views of a laughable 200 people, of which only 96 people (48%) said they preferred Flora's spread whereas 90 people (45%) said they preferred Lurpak's rival spread and the remaining 14 people (7%) did not express a preference for either.

Hardly an overwhelming victory for Flora is it?

Why do these advertisers insist on spending peanuts on their half-arsed market research and then thousands and thousands on their advertising campaigns? Those cosmetics companies are just as bad.

darts_aint_sport

Because they can get away with it! The problem lies with the ASA.

Jaybird-UK

Id like them to say "More people did not prefer Flora" (45% + 7%)

I agree, the poll is laughable

TelBoy

What also makes me laugh is the "chemistry" in the hair care adverts.

Floodboy

talking of rip off adverts. There was one on yesterday for HSBC. Cant remember what they were trying to sell but the small print on the screen asked for £50k of savings, an annual income of £75k and linked to a mortgage of £250k plus.

NotoriousREV

I'm just glad that finally someone has seen sense and combined hyleuronic acid and retinol.

TelBoy

Exactly!! That sort of nonsense really should be banned. Pantene seem to be the worst at it.

cornflakes5210

iTrader: (1)

same **** happens with shampoo and conditioner
our product makes your hair shinier.

small print: only tested against shampoo

i wanna ring them up and say i wear a hat beat that fkers

lordretsudo

I've noticed adverts in the past for things like skin cream where the small print mentions that the sample size was something like 26 women. I'm amazed that it's legal to make sweeping claims based on such small sample groups, but then if people believe stupid adverts I guess they get what they deserve...

Turbo2

Just dug up this old thread because there's a Rimmel cosmetics advert that gets my goat. It's the one with Sophie Ellis Bextor and states in the small print that 80% of the 32 women tested agreed that blah, blah ,blah.

Now I'm not a cosmetics expert, but I think that a big company like Rimmel could have based their claims on a rather bigger target audience than 32 women (probably just working in their office that day!), but what makes me really laugh is that 80% of 32 women actually equates to 25.6 women!

Maybe it was 25 women + 1 ladyboy?

Mind you there's an even madder one from last year. Check this out...

http://tvs-worst-adverts.co.uk/rimme...ter-lip-gloss/

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

Apparently there has been a survey taken on SN for whether people give a toss about this thread. It was an overwhelming result in favour of

1.No, couldn't give a flying **** 75%
2.He is spot on the money 0%
3.leave me alone you freak bib wearing market researcher 25%


Though admittedly the source group was quite small at 3

pwhittle

with companies like that, the text they don't want you to read says things like "of 76 women questioned". I can't help wondering if their marketing department happens to contain 76 women, or if they keep doing surveys of 76 women, until one of them gives the results they want.
People must fall for it though.

Anyone alse notices on the Mizuma (sp?) mobile phone recyling add, the screenshot shows phones being valued at up to £175, but the voice-over states upto £100. I doubt that's accidental.

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

Same with the iphone ads. Sequences shortened and steps removed..... oh great so you're not actually showing how the thing works then are you!

Did I just go there?

Computer games used to be the worst showing cut scenes to show off the gfx.

Ads for LCD and Plasma tvs showing a stunning picture.... err on your tv. How's that work then?

The problem is this country is full of uneducated idiots who don't ever review things for themselves to base their own judgement on. It's why papers like the Sun etc hold so much power. retards believe what they read.

michaelro

I believe everything I just read in your post....

Matteeboy

We often commission surveys to help with PR for clients. A sample of 200 wouldn't even be considered. Needs to be at least 1000 if a consumer product.

There are some ridiculous bits of "research" around. Most of it ends up being spouted on Radio Cornwall!

stilover

Don't watch adverts.

BOB.T

I'm in the US at the mo, the ads here are great! You'll get an ad for, let's say headache pills. They go on about how good they, better than whatever brand and then at the end they have to list the side effects 'side effects may include headaches, blindness and death...' they're just great!

Then you'll get the market leading car, best MPG ever at 22...on the freeway!!!

boxst

The adverts in America for drugs are amazing though: They are mostly prescription, so they expect you to go to your Doctor and demand a particular brand of drug because you saw it on television.

Steve