Editing 1096: Clinically Studied Ingredient

Jump to: navigation, search

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    = clinically studied ingredient.png
+
| 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 ''proven effective'', or at the very least, not harmful, although neither is, strictly speaking, implied by that statement. An example of this appears on many body wash  products, bearing the phrase "Tested by dermatologists for sensitive skin" or something similar. The phrase just states that 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 {{w|False advertising|deceptive marketing}} techniques, leading consumers to believe something which encourages them to buy the product, without committing to saying it explicitly.
+
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 product itself has been clinically tested and proven. However, the phrase is very ambiguous. Firstly, only a single ingredient has necessarily been studied, not the combined effect of all the ingredients in the product (which can produce drastically different effects). 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 the conversation, a woman tells [[Cueball]] that she has been tested, presumably for {{w|Sexually transmitted disease}}s. However she does not reveal the results of the tests, which is the primary information Cueball could be worried about, and when Cueball inquires, she acts like he is being unreasonable to also want that information. In this way, [[Randall]] is making an analogy to how a marketer might think consumers would be unreasonable to want to know the ''results'' of the clinical studies on the ingredient.
+
There is a question as to whether the long-haired female is Megan or not.
  
The title text mentions the legendary film critic {{w|Roger Ebert}}. At the time this comic was published (a year before Ebert's death), one could expect him to have watched most big-name movies that were coming out. Simply stating that he saw a movie, therefore, does not necessarily mean that he liked it.
+
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 studys on the ingredient.
  
Impressive-sounding but meaningless advertisement claims are also the subject of [[624: Branding]], [[641: Free]], [[870: Advertising]] and [[993: Brand Identity]].
+
In the title text, {{w|Roger Ebert}} is a famous film critic. 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.
  
==Transcript==
+
{{Comic discussion}}
:I can't help but admire the audacity of the marketer who came up with the phrase "contains a clinically studied ingredient"
 
 
 
:[Cueball is sat on a bed, talking to a curly-haired woman standing close by.]
 
:Woman: Don't worry - I've been tested.
 
:Cueball: ...and you're clean?
 
:Woman: So many questions!
 
 
 
{{comic discussion}}
 
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
 
<!-- [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]] Disputed! -->
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)