In a recent article , the redoubtable comedian David Mitchell noted that the office supply company Toner Giant had published research showing that a high percentage of those working from home (yes, it was WFH not WTF) watch daytime TV. Sadly, as is often the case when the media comments on data, Mitchell did not provide a link to the original source - it's here if you want it . There are two interesting bits to this - one is what people allegedly watch and why Toner Giant is telling us (Mitchell struggles to understand why they did this, presumably because he didn't read the whole original piece, which tells you) - and the other is whether or not this is a problem. The claim is 82% of UK hybrid workers admit to watching TV when working from home - this is based on a 'survey of 2,000 British hybrid workers', though we aren't told how they were selected and hence how representative they were (or weren't). Why does Toner Giant care? Because they claim that personal...

Asking when 99% is less than 99% sounds like a riddle - but it's not. I recently heard a Sky Mobile radio advert in which they claimed 99% UK coverage. In the 'small print' words at the end, they said this meant they covered 99% of the population. I don't know about you, but unless I'd heard that proviso, I would have assumed that 99% coverage meant you could connect to their service in 99% of UK locations - I expected the figure to be based on area of coverage, rather than population. It might seem like this is splitting hairs, but it really isn't. Let's just imagine an unlikely version of the UK where 99% of the population lived in London (this is, after all, what most advertising people think). Having 99% coverage by Sky's definition would mean that you could only use your mobile phone in 0.65% of the country. The whole point of a mobile is to be able to use in on the move, not just at your home location. Of course, the real UK is not like my imagined...

One of the less enjoyable aspects of having a blog is having to dismiss all the fake comments that are blatant attempts at getting advertising links posted onto a website for free. Traditionally, these fake comment adverts have been distinctly feeble. Some blatantly ignore the topic - so, for instance, a post about why I don't like opera might get links for the wonders of a brand of dog food. Others go for what they presumably hope is more subtlety. They start with a bland comment, something like 'Great post, I really agree with this! You should see this too'. But the lack of direct connection to the topic you are then directed to is a giveaway, as in  a post about the totally shocking contents list of something I bought at the supermarket being linked to a site selling garden lights. Today, though, and perhaps scarily, whatever algorithm is used to select a post to put a fake comment on has finally come up with something that appears to be directly relevant to the text o...

When I was young, an unlikely product was regularly advertised on TV which some accused of ruining a great song. It was what we'd now primarily call kerosene - aviation fuel - but then was the more humble paraffin. But it wasn't because we all had private jets back then. If you were allowed to watch commercial TV (more conservative households considered ITV to be the work of the devil and stuck to the BBC) it would only take someone to sing four rising tones in a major key to the jaunty words 'Bum bum bum bum' (no, really) to come up with the response 'Esso Blue!' This wasn't, of course, the song in question, but more of that in a moment. Esso Blue was the leading brand of paraffin in the UK and it was bought in large quantities, because back then most of us didn't have central heating. (We got it when I was 11.) In the winter, a room or two were heated by open fires, you might have had an electric wall heater in the bathroom - but if you wanted heat e...

In amongst the spam and oddities that appear in email there is occasionally an official one that causes some confusion - and I got such a mail today. It was from the DVLA, and as far as I can tell it was genuine. And it was advertising an auction of personalised car registrations. Impressively, it was a personalised email too, as it was suggesting my company might be interested in a specific numberplate. But the initials on the numberplate were ABR an my company initials are CUL - which seemed a pretty hefty miss. Then I realised that the targeting of the email was cleverer than I had thought. After all, the 'C' in the company's initials stands for 'creativity. I was supposed to read the whole numberplate, not just the first three letters. I don't was a personalised numberplates - I think they're tacky. But if I did, I would have got excited if I only had...

See number 10 See number 10 See number 10 See number 10 See number 10 See number 10 See number 10 See number 10 See number 10 By promising something like this. But they never deliver.

On my drive home from the centre of Swindon I pass a couple of billboards which have recently, once again, displayed a very mysterious message (one shown here*). It's a bizarre and pretty much meaningless message, yet someone has spent a lot of money on it. Billboard advertising is not particularly cheap. You might think that it means Apple is going to sue us every time we mention an apple, but according to the website that seems to be related to the posters, it is all based on a bizarre pseudo-legal claim, with no basis in law, that your birth certificate means that you handed over your name to the Crown/government, and it is then illegal to use your name without their permission. There have been absolute shedloads of discussion of these things on the internet - plus quite a few websites making the claim supporting this idea that you do not have legal ownership of your name. I'm not going to link to these for reasons discussed below, but you can easily find them if yo...

I am, as I not infrequently do, feeling rather sorry for the Church of England. This most inoffensive of religious organisations is being lambasted by certain parts of the media and by atheist bloggers for an attempt to place an advert in cinemas alongside the showing of Star Wars this Christmas. Now I confess that my knee-jerk reaction was much the same as those who want the ad not to be shown. It didn't seem quite right as not everyone in the audience would appreciate it. To quote a spokesperson for the company responsible for the advertising, Digital Cinema Media: 'Some advertising - unintentionally or otherwise - could cause offence to those of differing political persuasions, as well as to those of differing faith and indeed no faith at all.' However. When I actually think about this action rationally, I am less happy with the decision. First of all, I am never comfortable with any curtailment of free speech, unless said speech is inciting a crime. Too many pe...

Like many authors I have a toe in social media - not just this blog (and the associated Google+), but Twitter and Facebook (and LinkedIn) too. I do have some useful social interaction on Facebook, but my Facebook page is dedicated to business - in my case, letting people know about science, writing and my books. Fair enough, and Facebook positively encourages this, providing opportunities to advertise both your page and specific posts to interested parties. I've never bothered with this - I do a bit of Google advertising in the vain hope that it will push up visibility in the search listings, but Facebook advertising seems like money down the drain. However, the other day I had a post I thought would be benefit from a wider audience so I thought I'd invest the price of a cup of coffee in a couple of days promotion. Off it duly went to the Facebook censors... only to be rejected fairly smartly because it 'breached guidelines'. Apparently, the image in my 'adve...

There has been some mention in the press in the UK recently about a council receiving complaints because builders were wolf-whistling at women as they went past a building site. This is has provoked a whole spectrum of responses from 'It's just a bit of fun'/'It makes you [the woman] feel good' to 'It is objectification'/'It makes you feel threatened.' I personally think that it should be discouraged, as I feel sexism has no place in modern society, whatever the excuse, and this seems to be suggesting there are circumstances where take a sexist attitude doesn't really matter. We wouldn't accept casual racism because it's 'just a bit of fun'. But equally, I am genuinely very uncomfortable about the casual sexism in the Diet Coke adverts that we have been subjected to, apparently for 30 years. I've included one of the latest at the bottom of the page. I honestly think if the same advert was done with a bunch of men ogling ...

Modern technology makes it possible for advertising to be more personal than we could ever have imagined a few years ago. We recently had this flyer through the door: It shows a house just down the road from us, happily sold, so we are more likely to go with that estate agent. And sure enough, that very house does have a sign outside from them. But see if you can spot the difference? The angle is different because the real board doesn't show face on, but I can assure you it's the same house, and not only is it still showing 'For Sale' it has done so for many months. I contacted Strakers (apparently there is no apostrophe, groan), the agent, to see if they feel this is legitimate, and they say that it's fine because the house is actually sold, subject to contract, but the vendors don't want the sign changed to sold until contracts have been exchanged. Even so, for me, that top picture is just slightly too far from reality to be acceptable. What do yo...

We're all familiar with pay per view - the idea of paying money to watch a sporting event or whatever on TV, but now there's the inverse. Paid to view. An opportunity to be paid to watch those miniature masterpieces known as adverts. At the moment, apparently, you have to be invited, but soon I think anyone will be able to pop along to the Nectar Adpoints site  and be made rich beyond their wildest dreams by watching a few ads. Okay, I exaggerated a bit. A lot. All the payments are in Nectar points (which as cunningly worth half as much as pennies, so the impressive-sounding 500 nectar points is £2.50). There's an up-front joining award (currently 250 points), then you get an amount for watching an ad (typically 4 points), another 4 points for answering a couple of multiple choice questions and a bonus point for clicking through to the manufacturers website. So that's typical 9 points, or 4.5p per ad. As most ads lasts 30 seconds, allowing another 30 seconds for fa...

Those of us with any sort of scientific bent have groaned for years over the misuse of sciencey words in  cosmetic adverts. Practically any cosmetic ad seems to try to do two things: To use emotional trigger words like 'natural' to make us think the product was practically squeezed out of a fruit or leaf, rather than blended in a vast industrial complex. Also words like 'nourish' however ridiculous this is when talking about something like (dead) hair. To use words that have real meaning in science, but removed from their context. So, for instance, putting 'DNA' into the description of your product, or some wonderfully obscure compound name like pro-boswellox-retinox-B. Now an oil company has got on the bandwagon (not an entirely strange jump, since most cosmetics contain a fair amount of processed oil of one sort or another). When selling petrol, the oil companies have a real problem, because petrol is a commodity. We don't really care what brand it ...

There seems to be a trend towards the use of infographics in blogs. I think what has happened is that people realize that us bloggers are lazy types, and if someone gives you a pretty graphic to use for free, then they are happy to do so. The blogger gets a nice look, while the graphic owner gets a little push. Those nice people at Icon Books have produced one for The Universe Inside You . Not only am I going to share this with you, but if anyone wants to reproduce it, they are very free to do so. I just ask that you link from the post either to the book's page on my website or the book's own website . Here it is in all its glory (if it doesn't fit on your screen, click on it to see a suitable sized image):

I saw a TV advert the other day that left me just short of jumping up and down, screaming and throwing things at the television. It took the 'dubious promise' technique to a whole new level. The advert in question was for the quaintly named Arm and Hammer toothpaste. In it, ex-Blue Peter presenter Katy Hill was very enthuasiastic about their whitening toothpaste. She told us it would make your teeth 'up to 3 shades whiter or your money back.' Let's examine that claim. 'Up to' is of course the magnificent marketing weasel words term. 'Up to' is totally meaningless in that it can be anything from zero to the amount specified. So 'Up to 50% off' could mean 'nothing off'. The '3 shades whiter' bit is sort of okay. No normal punter probably knows what three shades whiter looks like, but there is an official definition. But here's the killer. 'Or your money back.' By combining 'Up to' and 'or your money...

I get plenty of unsolicited emails because my email address is publically available on a website. I don't mind too much because just occasionally amongst the dross I get an email that gives me so much pleasure that it's worth the drudgery of sweeping away the rubbish. And one came today. The image to the right is the opening of the email. In it we learn that William O'Connor (I presume that is he in the photo): boasts over 30 years in active mediumship and psychic consultations with a wide array of achievements including TV and Radio. William has been active in the spiritualist movement in Scotland for many years not to mention psychic floor shows in front of large audiences. What's more: William and his psychics will be at the Body & Soul Fair at Glasgow Royal Concert Hall on 25th and 26th February. Our psychics will be available to provide private readings, 20 minutes for £30. Demand is sure to be high so book your reading now, for a time which suits you! Ju...

There's a lot to love about the new TV advert for the UK's electrical/electronic retailers of last resort PC World and Curry's. The pastiche of Star Wars is rather well done. The landing craft is believable and there's some nice acting like the almost-entirely-suppressed wince when the manager's car is crushed. Darth Vader is pretty good too. However, have they really thought through the picture this ad puts across? Here are the key messages I pick up: Our shops are run by an evil empire - buy things here and you are funding evil Our training involves fear and peril Our attitude to customer service takes its lead from Darth Vader, a (fictional) mass murderer and war criminal Our staff are massed mindless automata of a controlling state We are the bad guys All in all, is this really the image that they want? Back to the drawing board, I think. The version shown is the 'Director's Cut' which is slightly longer than the advert as broadcast

Faced with the question 'When does marketing become lying?' many of those who are suspicious of capitalism and business are likely to come up with the knee jerk response 'Is there a difference?' But that's not fair. Marketing is a perfectly legitimate and sensible activity. You would have to be stupid not to want potential customers to see your product or service in the best light - and as soon as you aspire to this, you are thinking of marketing. Unfortunately sometimes marketing crosses the line into deception. I posted quite a while ago about a marketing campaign where apparently hand-written post-it notes were attached to fake newspapers describing a trainer's work. I've also complained to advertising standards a couple of times about advertising that I think crosses the line. In both cases they didn't agree. One involved paper junk mail for a charity where the envelope implied it contained important personal information and it didn't. The o...

An advertisement, yesterday Yesterday a nice man paid me some money to ask me about advertising. (I am quite happy to pontificate on any subject, as long as you pay me.) He had a series of queries about my response to various adverts, but failed to ask the two key questions, as far as I was concerned. The first is 'Do you pay any attention to adverts?' And the answer is 'Hardly any.' Online or on the iPad I whiz past them without ever taking in what they are advertising. If they are on the same page as text I'm reading, my eyes bounce off them harmlessly. I might take in an image - I've seen one recently with a blue zebra on it - but I have no idea what it was advertising, or what it said about the product or service. Similarly on TV these days, 95% of what I watch is timeshifted on a DVR. All adverts are skipped through. Sorry - never saw it. The second is 'Why did you rate that ad with Lewis Hamilton in so badly?' One of the ads in the intervi...

Recently I had a little rant about antioxidants and how much they were misused as a selling tool by making it sound as if a product was better for you than it really was. I thought the way antioxidants were being pushed in food and drink was the limit of such dishonesty. Silly old me. I often find the rest of the family has borrowed my shampoo, so I sometimes get my revenge by borrowing theirs. Imagine my surprise when I discovered this morning I was washing my hair with a product that boasts antioxidants as its main selling point. Yes, it's Alberto Balasam antioxidant shampoo. How do they justify this? Here's the bumf: Pomegranate, the "superfruit" packed full of anti-oxidants, is now great for your hair too. This Pomegranate shampoo deeply cleanses and strengthens your hair and leaves it smelling "superfruity"! Oh, wow. Now, to be fair they don't make any claims for benefits from the antioxidant (or should I say anti-oxidant), and they even qualify...