Editing 1096: Clinically Studied Ingredient
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| date = August 17, 2012 | | date = August 17, 2012 | ||
| title = Clinically Studied Ingredient | | title = Clinically Studied Ingredient | ||
− | | image = | + | | image = Clinically Studied Ingredient.png |
| titletext = Blatantly banking on customers not understanding that it's like a Hollywood studio advertising that their new movie was 'watched by Roger Ebert'. | | titletext = Blatantly banking on customers not understanding that it's like a Hollywood studio advertising that their new movie was 'watched by Roger Ebert'. | ||
+ | | imagesize = | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | This comic is poking fun at a phrase which some ads use to boost sales of their product. They state that their product contains a "clinically studied ingredient", which consumers assume means that the ingredient has been clinically tested and | + | This comic is poking fun at a phrase which some ads use to boost sales of their product. They state that their product contains a "clinically studied ingredient", which consumers assume means that the ingredient has been clinically tested and proven (at least) not harmful. However, the phrase is very ambiguous. Firstly, the statement only relates to a single ingredient of the product, and it does not say anything of the combined effect of all the ingredients in the product (which can produce drastically different effects due to interactions). Secondly, the phrase just states an ingredient was clinically studied, and doesn't mention the findings of that study (which, for all we know, could have found the ingredient to be ineffective or harmful). In other words, the phrase is used in shrewd marketing techniques. |
− | In the middle of | + | In the comic, we come in the middle of a conversation with a female character telling [[Cueball]] that she's been tested. Although, she doesn't state what she was tested for -- the implication is that they were talking about {{w|STD}}s. However, Megan does not reveal the results of the tests. When Cueball inquires, Megan acts like he is being unreasonable to also want that information. In this way, [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] is making an analogy to how the marketer might think consumers would be unreasonable to want to know the ''results'' of the clinical studies on the ingredient. |
− | + | In the title text, {{w|Roger Ebert}} is a famous film critic. A critic whose favourable reviews are few and far between. However, we can expect most big name movies to be watched by him. Simply stating that he saw a movie doesn't necessarily mean that he liked it. | |
− | + | {{Comic discussion}} | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | {{ | ||
− | |||
− |