It’s not an uncommon experience in supermarkets these days to be browsing the shelves for everyday products, only to be surrounded by terms such as micellar technology; pH adjusted; clinically proven, supports immunity! These terms would be at home in a science lab, but instead they describe shampoos, foundations, yoghurts, and more. They seem to be approaching ever closer to ubiquity in the advertising world, and not without good reason.
Scientific language is one of the many ways advertisers try to win consumers over. Supermarket shelves hold hundreds of products, and sellers need to get consumers to buy theirs. Scientific claims differentiate similar products from each other, and by utilising public trust in science, it can prove a very effective marketing technique. Science has connotations of logic, precision, and rests on the high value ‘objective truth’. Using scientific language in advertising can increase the consumer’s belief that a product will work, as the process behind it is rationalised.
Other than scientific vocabulary, statistics and graphs are persuasive tools in demonstrating a product’s efficacy to the public, especially if the science behind it is hard to explain to a layperson. Spokespeople who work in a scientific field are a more effective marketing tool than those that don’t. When a ‘licensed dermatologist’ on social media claims that you should buy the following expensive products, you are more likely to believe them, than if a less-qualified spokesperson tried to market it to you. This is for a logical reason – if someone has obtained a scientific qualification, they will be assumed to have the authority and knowledge to back up their claims – yet it still shows how significant small differences in advertising can be.
However, the ways in which these claims are made can subtly protect them from not being legally permissible. ‘Weasel words’ try to imply that ‘something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated’. For example, the famous: 9 out of 10 dentists recommend this toothpaste; the sample used is not specified, so you don’t know which dentists were asked, how many of them didn’t vote either way, and how many of them decided to recommend it. So, even though it seems like this toothpaste is highly regarded by dentists, this isn’t actually relayed by the statistic. Other phrases that qualify statements, such as ‘evidence suggests’ or claims given by ‘experts’ are vague enough that the statements are not flagged by advertising regulations as unfounded.
While this isn’t always done with malicious intent, it is easier for advertisers to use this language to mislead the public than it should be. The evidence needed to back up advertising claims is far less rigorous than that required for studies published in scientific journals – it doesn’t help that these studies are funded by the companies with a vested interest in the results they find being in their favour. You need to look no further than the tobacco industry for a perfect example of when using science for advertising can go very wrong.
According to Cancer Research UK, ‘tobacco is the single greatest cause of preventable illness and avoidable death in the UK’. Furthermore, they mention that ‘the tobacco industry has been aware of the serious health consequences of its product for decades yet has sought to conceal the evidence from its customers’. The smoking industry has tried to use science to justify the comparison of nicotine to tobacco; the co-founder of Juul said that ‘chemically, nicotine is very similar to caffeine, and coffee is one of the most widely traded products in the world’. This claim isn’t a new one, it’s been pushed by the tobacco industry for decades, but in fact, they aren’t that similar. Caffeine works by blocking a neurotransmitter that causes relaxation, which is why it makes you feel more awake. However, nicotine affects multiple different neurotransmitters, which means its effects can vary, even on the same person. People are also far more likely to become addicted to nicotine, and the withdrawal symptoms when you stop taking it are worse. But by claiming that these two are ‘chemically similar’ and the statement the co-founder gave following that, it indirectly implies that nicotine containing products should be as easily accessible as coffee. While this is an extreme example, it illustrates the caution that should be taken around using scientific language when advertising to the public.
Using science to advertise is not an inherently negative or positive thing. In some ways, it gives consumers transparency on how products work, and what differences are present within similar products. However, if there isn’t a difference between products, scientific language merely acts as a fancy flashing sign for consumers. Claiming that your cleaning product has ‘micellar’ technology implies that most of the others don’t, even though all soap-based products use micelles to clean. So, make sure to shop with awareness, and don’t just take advertising at its word.
Bibliography
