A brand new podcast has just spewed straight out of my mouth and into the digital ether! It's here:
20.12.08 - Haagcore #4: Sinterklaas - https://www.yousendit.com/download/TTZra0ZSZEttNExIRGc9PQ
It includes such things as an exploration of the dutch origins of Christmas traditions, some poetry and even a specially written christmas song. Hope you enjoy it. I'm back in Lincoln on Monday.
Also, Spot The Difference:
America:
Britain:
<---------PODCAST SPOILER ALERT!!!-------->
Oh, and if your wondering what I'm talking about in the podcast when I mention people blacked-up in 15th Century Spanish clothing, I'm talking about this:
Also, here's some pictures of the rioting in Greece:
Information: http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml
Pictures: http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=en&article_id=933804
dp
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Advertising Statistics
I recently rediscovered an advert I have been trying to find for ages because it is a classic example of the spurious use of misleading figures in advertising and really irritated me when I saw it many months ago. It recently appeared very briefly in Charlie Brooker's advertising edition of Screenwipe.
The product is L'Oreal Collegen Replumper and one thing that struck me the first time I saw it is the very odd numbers used to justify the products claims, as seen in the screenshot below:
Firstly, 217 women is a ridiculously small control group for testing a naturally distributed cosmetic product.
Secondly, the figures don't add up:
"Plumps and Smooths, 81% agree" out of "217 women tested"
Let's do the math:
How much is 81% of 217?:
81/100=0.81
0.81 x 217= 175.77 women.
175.77 women agree?
175.77 women?!
OK, maybe this isn't fair: if a survey is taken, some women may choose not to answer the question, in which case, they would not be counted as one of the 81%, even though they could be counted as one of the 217. In this case we can work out the amount of women who agreed with the statement by multiplying 0.81 by every number between 217 and 1 and finding out which numbers give non-decimal integers:
As you can see by the chart above, the only possible number of women who could have agreed with the statement are either 200 women or 100 women; either 17 or 117 less than their advert implies: that's either 7.83% or 53.91% less - bringing the possibly of a major discrepancy between the figures presented and the actual 'research' carried out!
Needless to say, I should get out more.
dp
The product is L'Oreal Collegen Replumper and one thing that struck me the first time I saw it is the very odd numbers used to justify the products claims, as seen in the screenshot below:
Firstly, 217 women is a ridiculously small control group for testing a naturally distributed cosmetic product.
Secondly, the figures don't add up:
"Plumps and Smooths, 81% agree" out of "217 women tested"
Let's do the math:
How much is 81% of 217?:
81/100=0.81
0.81 x 217= 175.77 women.
175.77 women agree?
175.77 women?!
OK, maybe this isn't fair: if a survey is taken, some women may choose not to answer the question, in which case, they would not be counted as one of the 81%, even though they could be counted as one of the 217. In this case we can work out the amount of women who agreed with the statement by multiplying 0.81 by every number between 217 and 1 and finding out which numbers give non-decimal integers:
No. of women tested | 81% of No. of women tested | No. of women tested | 81% of No. of women tested | |
217 | 175.77 | 97 | 78.57 | |
216 | 174.96 | 96 | 77.76 | |
215 | 174.15 | 95 | 76.95 | |
214 | 173.34 | 94 | 76.14 | |
213 | 172.53 | 93 | 75.33 | |
212 | 171.72 | 92 | 74.52 | |
211 | 170.91 | 91 | 73.71 | |
210 | 170.1 | 90 | 72.9 | |
209 | 169.29 | 89 | 72.09 | |
208 | 168.48 | 88 | 71.28 | |
207 | 167.67 | 87 | 70.47 | |
206 | 166.86 | 86 | 69.66 | |
205 | 166.05 | 85 | 68.85 | |
204 | 165.24 | 84 | 68.04 | |
203 | 164.43 | 83 | 67.23 | |
202 | 163.62 | 82 | 66.42 | |
201 | 162.81 | 81 | 65.61 | |
200 | 162 | 80 | 64.8 | |
199 | 161.19 | 79 | 63.99 | |
198 | 160.38 | 78 | 63.18 | |
197 | 159.57 | 77 | 62.37 | |
196 | 158.76 | 76 | 61.56 | |
195 | 157.95 | 75 | 60.75 | |
194 | 157.14 | 74 | 59.94 | |
193 | 156.33 | 73 | 59.13 | |
192 | 155.52 | 72 | 58.32 | |
191 | 154.71 | 71 | 57.51 | |
190 | 153.9 | 70 | 56.7 | |
189 | 153.09 | 69 | 55.89 | |
188 | 152.28 | 68 | 55.08 | |
187 | 151.47 | 67 | 54.27 | |
186 | 150.66 | 66 | 53.46 | |
185 | 149.85 | 65 | 52.65 | |
184 | 149.04 | 64 | 51.84 | |
183 | 148.23 | 63 | 51.03 | |
182 | 147.42 | 62 | 50.22 | |
181 | 146.61 | 61 | 49.41 | |
180 | 145.8 | 60 | 48.6 | |
179 | 144.99 | 59 | 47.79 | |
178 | 144.18 | 58 | 46.98 | |
177 | 143.37 | 57 | 46.17 | |
176 | 142.56 | 56 | 45.36 | |
175 | 141.75 | 55 | 44.55 | |
174 | 140.94 | 54 | 43.74 | |
173 | 140.13 | 53 | 42.93 | |
172 | 139.32 | 52 | 42.12 | |
171 | 138.51 | 51 | 41.31 | |
170 | 137.7 | 50 | 40.5 | |
169 | 136.89 | 49 | 39.69 | |
168 | 136.08 | 48 | 38.88 | |
167 | 135.27 | 47 | 38.07 | |
166 | 134.46 | 46 | 37.26 | |
165 | 133.65 | 45 | 36.45 | |
164 | 132.84 | 44 | 35.64 | |
163 | 132.03 | 43 | 34.83 | |
162 | 131.22 | 42 | 34.02 | |
161 | 130.41 | 41 | 33.21 | |
160 | 129.6 | 40 | 32.4 | |
159 | 128.79 | 39 | 31.59 | |
158 | 127.98 | 38 | 30.78 | |
157 | 127.17 | 37 | 29.97 | |
156 | 126.36 | 36 | 29.16 | |
155 | 125.55 | 35 | 28.35 | |
154 | 124.74 | 34 | 27.54 | |
153 | 123.93 | 33 | 26.73 | |
152 | 123.12 | 32 | 25.92 | |
151 | 122.31 | 31 | 25.11 | |
150 | 121.5 | 30 | 24.3 | |
149 | 120.69 | 29 | 23.49 | |
148 | 119.88 | 28 | 22.68 | |
147 | 119.07 | 27 | 21.87 | |
146 | 118.26 | 26 | 21.06 | |
145 | 117.45 | 25 | 20.25 | |
144 | 116.64 | 24 | 19.44 | |
143 | 115.83 | 23 | 18.63 | |
142 | 115.02 | 22 | 17.82 | |
141 | 114.21 | 21 | 17.01 | |
140 | 113.4 | 20 | 16.2 | |
139 | 112.59 | 19 | 15.39 | |
138 | 111.78 | 18 | 14.58 | |
137 | 110.97 | 17 | 13.77 | |
136 | 110.16 | 16 | 12.96 | |
135 | 109.35 | 15 | 12.15 | |
134 | 108.54 | 14 | 11.34 | |
133 | 107.73 | 13 | 10.53 | |
132 | 106.92 | 12 | 9.72 | |
131 | 106.11 | 11 | 8.91 | |
130 | 105.3 | 10 | 8.1 | |
129 | 104.49 | 9 | 7.29 | |
128 | 103.68 | 8 | 6.48 | |
127 | 102.87 | 7 | 5.67 | |
126 | 102.06 | 6 | 4.86 | |
125 | 101.25 | 5 | 4.05 | |
124 | 100.44 | 4 | 3.24 | |
123 | 99.63 | 3 | 2.43 | |
122 | 98.82 | 2 | 1.62 | |
121 | 98.01 | 1 | 0.81 | |
120 | 97.2 | |||
119 | 96.39 | |||
118 | 95.58 | |||
117 | 94.77 | |||
116 | 93.96 | |||
115 | 93.15 | |||
114 | 92.34 | |||
113 | 91.53 | |||
112 | 90.72 | |||
111 | 89.91 | |||
110 | 89.1 | |||
109 | 88.29 | |||
108 | 87.48 | |||
107 | 86.67 | |||
106 | 85.86 | |||
105 | 85.05 | |||
104 | 84.24 | |||
103 | 83.43 | |||
102 | 82.62 | |||
101 | 81.81 | |||
100 | 81 | |||
99 | 80.19 | |||
98 | 79.38 |
As you can see by the chart above, the only possible number of women who could have agreed with the statement are either 200 women or 100 women; either 17 or 117 less than their advert implies: that's either 7.83% or 53.91% less - bringing the possibly of a major discrepancy between the figures presented and the actual 'research' carried out!
Needless to say, I should get out more.
dp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)