Low sugar - often means they’ve replaced some sugar with artificial sweeteners or to be fair natural alternatives such as stevia It never dawns on manufacturers that people may actually want the product to be less sweet.
Carl P. Wrighter’s 1972 book I Can Sell You Anything is an indispensable book on this
Wrighter, a former ad man, devotes an entire chapter “weasel words”
Besides ones already cited, he observes that anyone can call their product “the best”, but can get into trouble if they say they are better than another product – that can be the legal basis for a claim. So they end up comparing themselves to un-named brands, or earlier versions of themselves.
Also frequent is the comparisonless comparison – “Beefos is better for your dog!” Than what?
My favorite one is the deceptively-worded claim where you fill in the blanks “Of American’s favorite gums, Trident is sugarless!” was an actual claim, and one where lots of people involuntarily and unconsciously added an “only”
Not saying sugar and those other things aren’t bad, but HFCS is the worst kind of sugar because of the way it’s metabolized, and in processed foods it doesn’t come with the natural fiber you get with fruits that otherwise tempers its intake. It also doesn’t taste very good.
You realize they’re packaged that way to prevent the contents from getting crushed in transport, right? Yeah it looks like you’re getting a lot less than you should, but that air cushion is important.
I never understood why some people get so upset about organic foods. Same with the pro-GMO “all foods are genetically modified” crowd. There’s a market for food that’s raised more responsibly than you get from the factory farming system. Sure it’s not perfect, maybe far from it, but can you really argue it’s not better? It’s not even necessarily about nutrition per se, but being more responsible with land and livestock, not soaking the ground in chemicals, not indiscriminately injecting hormones, and not putting control of our food supply into the hands of some demonstrably reprehensible corporations. So if some people want that, and others are willing to supply it, more power to them I say.
A few years back, Miller beer ran TV ads touting that it had more flavor than its competitor. It did not specify whether the flavor was good or bad, just that they had more of it.
I had worked with the consumer testing group that did the testing of this, and I thought that they were huckster weasels.
Yeah, the "up to 75% off!!! adverts are the worst, along with their cousin "EVERYTHING $1.00 or more. Many moons ago, I worked at a Waldenbooks (back when they…you know…existed) and we had several shelves for remaindered books and discounts. We were told that the rule was that we had to have at least one book at the marked discount or we were falsely advertising. So, as long as there was one…only one was necessary…book at 75% off, we could advertise that way. If that book got purchased, we had to replace it or take down the sign.
I never knew if there was legal force to that. Still don’t.
^ That reminds me of all the cheap t-shirt, souvenir, and beachwear stores in places like Myrtle Beach that were constantly GOING OUT for BUSINESS
As a kid I read the Asterix books, set in Julius Caesar’s time. Our heroes hitch a ride with some Phoenecians. Upon arriving in port, the captain yells “hoist the flag”. The flag says, “Going out of business! Clearance Sale!”
“According to one study”…Yeah, one study that we funded and told the researches the results we wanted and gave them big bucks to get them. And is we do that twice, we can say “Studies show…”
You can absolutely argue that, because “organic” is not a synonym for “more responsible”.
The whole point of organic farming is that it “features practices that strive to cycle resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Organizations regulating organic products may restrict the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers in farming. In general, organic foods are also usually not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents or synthetic food additives.” How can that not be construed as more responsible?
Yeah, I know of a jewelers shop that is constantly
CLOSING DOWN
temporarily, for refurbishment
I found a closeout on a tent that was labeled as last year’s model. I then went to the manufacturer’s website where the current model was touted as “updated,” so I called to find out what the update comprised. The totality of it was that the color was changed from red to blue.
Stop looking at them. Their oft-repeated phrase is “Save 15% or more on car insurance,” despite the meme that “Save up to…” starts that phrase.
last time I was in the Everything 99 Cents store (it’s at the opposite side of town from Family Dollar Store) I noticed toiletries were packaged differently than you would find at walmart for the same brands.
I suspect this is deliberate - so you can’t easily compare if you are getting a deal or not.:dubious:
^ That’s also so they can refuse to price-match, because the SKU #'s are different so technically it’s not the same product. I think Best Buy does that a lot too.
Yes, we see this “time after time”.*
*I’ve personally heard that in research (as a joke), not in advertising.
Back when Phil Rizutto (sp?) was shilling for “The Money Store” he’d always say “Up to $50,000 - and more!”
“Made with all-natural ingredients”
Sawdust, dirt, and rodent droppings are all ‘natural’ ingredients.
Not true. There are legal definitions of “natural” flavourings etc, vs “artificial” ones.
In the US:
Four of them. Water may be bottled in a food plant as well.