 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Good to get some impartial numbers, even though they are still currently guesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I can't believe:
A this has not at this has not attracted more comments from this forum
B the company has not been challenged on their marketing figures
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
PP, there's another thread with more comment that was posted shortly after this one. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| PP wrote: |
I can't believe:
A this has not at this has not attracted more comments from this forum
B the company has not been challenged on their marketing figures |
The company won't get challenged because it's not technically wrong. About 97% of people with air bags do survive a slide, so they're not lying. The fact that they don't point out that 80-90% survive without air bags is for the consumer to realise, just like with any other product. Like the article says it's no different to a coffee brand claiming to be 97% caffeine free, when most regular coffees are already 90% caffeine free. The coffee should really say "70% less caffeine" or "1/3rd the caffeine", but 97% is a much more striking figure.
Not saying I agree with this method of presenting facts, it's misleading and I find it objectionable to say the least but it's pretty common. I think Boots even sell some "low fat" sandwiches that contain *more* fat than the sandwich on the next shelf which is marketed as a regular sandwich... they're both "low fat" by some measure but one costs more. Guess which.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
sah, although I'd argue that there is a significant difference between the claims one should be able to make about the contents of a sandwich or coffee and something which is designed and marketed as a safety product. Of course this ends up with the claim still being made but accompanied with a footnote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
| sah, although I'd argue that there is a significant difference between the claims one should be able to make about the contents of a sandwich or coffee and something which is designed and marketed as a safety product. Of course this ends up with the claim still being made but accompanied with a footnote. |
I don't disagree.
But, as a consumer you should make yourself aware of what you are buying when it's something like this. In other words although the claims are misleading you would be naïve to not do some homework, if only because of the cost of these things, let alone the safety aspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how percentage was taught in elementry school. But for me, every time I see a % sign, I always ask, "percentage of WHAT"? In other words, what's 100% whenever one sees a % sign!
Same goes to "probability", "likelihood", "better/worse", "more/less". Those are all comparitive terms, so it matters greatly what the reference is it's comparing to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
