If advertisers are not allowed to outright lie, they will do everything they can to minimize or obscure the truth. This is not exactly a revolutionary statement – most of us learn early on that the exciting toy in a television commercial is usually a far cry from the underwhelming, assembly-required hunks of plastic we get in the box.
And yet, well into our educated adulthoods and professional careers, we often find ourselves lured in by the same old practices. Let there be no doubt that advertising is far from a soft skill; it takes a keen collection of minds to be able to make even the most hypercritical among us second-guess their own psyches. And they wouldn’t be able to do this without an encyclopedic understanding of the claims they can and cannot legally make, even – perhaps especially – if it means taking advantage of a situation where there is no specific policy in place.
A recent news release from Alberta Agriculture and Forestry published on the Alberta Farmer Express website offers a good example of such practices at work in agriculture world. The release warns about unproven claims about fertilizer performance.
“In agriculture, there’s no shortage of products that guarantee tremendous response for relatively low cost,” says provincial crop specialist Harry Brook.
“Often, these products overpromise and underdeliver. A few years ago, the federal government changed requirements for fertilizer registration so that they only have to be proven safe, and not necessarily effective. This opened the door to many of these ‘miracle’ products.”
Brook points out a few red flags to look out for: user testimonials without data to back up their claims, research claims taken out of context and the tendency to exaggerate the difference between treatments by highlighting only the top portion of a graph.
“These rarely mention if the difference is significant or how trials were conducted,” says Brook. “There is no explanation if the results are repeatable, or any indication as to how reliable the information is. No background or statistical measures are provided to support the graphs. If you are putting good money into a product, you want more than a five per cent chance of it actually making a difference.”
My experience tells me that many ag producers consider themselves adept consumers who cannot be bought with the low-minded chicanery of the advertising industry. It’s a nice thought, but the truth is that advertising today is such an exact science that if you are in any way a human being, they already have your number. Please read this article from Wired magazine (“12 hidden tricks advertisers use to sell you stuff”) and see for yourself.
And yet, well into our educated adulthoods and professional careers, we often find ourselves lured in by the same old practices. Let there be no doubt that advertising is far from a soft skill; it takes a keen collection of minds to be able to make even the most hypercritical among us second-guess their own psyches. And they wouldn’t be able to do this without an encyclopedic understanding of the claims they can and cannot legally make, even – perhaps especially – if it means taking advantage of a situation where there is no specific policy in place.
A recent news release from Alberta Agriculture and Forestry published on the Alberta Farmer Express website offers a good example of such practices at work in agriculture world. The release warns about unproven claims about fertilizer performance.
“In agriculture, there’s no shortage of products that guarantee tremendous response for relatively low cost,” says provincial crop specialist Harry Brook.
“Often, these products overpromise and underdeliver. A few years ago, the federal government changed requirements for fertilizer registration so that they only have to be proven safe, and not necessarily effective. This opened the door to many of these ‘miracle’ products.”
Brook points out a few red flags to look out for: user testimonials without data to back up their claims, research claims taken out of context and the tendency to exaggerate the difference between treatments by highlighting only the top portion of a graph.
“These rarely mention if the difference is significant or how trials were conducted,” says Brook. “There is no explanation if the results are repeatable, or any indication as to how reliable the information is. No background or statistical measures are provided to support the graphs. If you are putting good money into a product, you want more than a five per cent chance of it actually making a difference.”
My experience tells me that many ag producers consider themselves adept consumers who cannot be bought with the low-minded chicanery of the advertising industry. It’s a nice thought, but the truth is that advertising today is such an exact science that if you are in any way a human being, they already have your number. Please read this article from Wired magazine (“12 hidden tricks advertisers use to sell you stuff”) and see for yourself.