 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2010Inspired by woo
I was going to save this for an SDC question but I'm too itchy to know what AUE thinks about the ASA's L'Oreal adjudication. (Also, I couldn't think of a Bifidobacterium question that only insulted the current French president's honesty.) At the end of last year, L'Oreal launched a skin cream called Youth Code. Its campaign was built around the notion that the new cream was based on a decade and more of novel research into the ways that DNA controls human skin's responses to external stimuli. The gist of this research was that the skin genes (NTBCW skinny jeans) of older women are slower to express themselves (produce the proper proteins) when repairing skin damage than the skin genes of young women. Perhaps not- so-novel, but never mind. Some of L'Oreal's many Youth Code slogans: developed from gene science derived from gene science derived from 10 years of gene science inspired by the science of genes That last one has been used in TV ads aimed at the UK market. (I saw one last night, which is why I got interested.) A few people complained to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority. Here's the ASA's adjudication: http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2010/7/LOreal-%28U K%29-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48743.aspx Not upheld. This was the complaint: 'Four viewers challenged whether the claim "Inspired by the science of genes" was misleading because it implied the product had a basis in genetic science.' This is why the complaint was rejected by the ASA: (a) L'Oreal did do some gene-based research, (b) consumers wouldn't think that 'inspired by' meant 'had a basis in', (c) moisturizing agents were included in the product. Nnnk?! It's probably true that most adwatchers did see through the 'inspired by' tosh but that doesn't make it right. If you're going to legislate against... bla bla bla. I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. Here's some links: http://www.thescienceofgenes.co.uk/ (L'Oreal microsite puffing its 'gene science') http://www.cosdna.com/eng/cosmetic_206531881.html (the new skin cream's ingredients) http://genome.jgi-psf.org/biflo/biflo.home.html (what Bifidobacterium longum is) -- VB Why smear fermented faecal bacteria on your face? Because you're worth it! > I was going to save this for an SDC question but I'm too itchy to > know what AUE thinks about the ASA's L'Oreal adjudication. (Also, I [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Nnnk?! Yes, could you expand on the nnnkiness of that last item? In my ignorance I can see no obvious link between the moisturisers and the genepool. I note with alarm that the first-listed ingredient, a solvent, has a safety-rating of only two green spots out of five. > but > It's probably true that most adwatchers did see through the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Why smear fermented faecal bacteria on your face? Think of a billion Snoopies dancing the conga to the Ode to Joy, up and down *your* wrinkles. > Because you're worth it! Or a skilled shoplifter. [...] > > This is why the complaint was rejected by the ASA: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ignorance I can see no obvious link between the moisturisers and the > genepool. Perhaps an analogy would help. If I sponsor research that finds that eating prunes causes cancer and I want to sell a product under the banner 'Inspired by cancer research', one legitimate option, in the eyes of the ASA, would be to sell paint that makes prunes look like plums. > I note with alarm that the first-listed ingredient, a > solvent, has a safety-rating of only two green spots out of five. Dangerous stuff that DHM. [...] > > Why smear fermented faecal bacteria on your face? > > Think of a billion Snoopies dancing the conga to the Ode to Joy, up > and down *your* wrinkles. OK. Now what? > > Because you're worth it! > > Or a skilled shoplifter. Take everything in your stride. -- VB > [...] >>> This is why the complaint was rejected by the ASA: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > eyes of the ASA, would be to sell paint that makes prunes look like > plums. Ah, it makes you look fertile. >> I note with alarm that the first-listed ingredient, a >> solvent, has a safety-rating of only two green spots out of five. > > Dangerous stuff that DHM. O? > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > OK. Now what? Smile wrinkles. Far more attractive. There was a series of TV glue commercials in Argentina in the sixties featuring old-fashioned movie mayhem. Cowboys would trash the saloon, or Frankenstein would rampage through the lab, and then the survivors would look at each other and say, in heavily-accented English with Spanish subtitles, "Andè naow whaat/¿Y ahora qué?". So I was briefly tempted to reply "Now, Poxipol!" and brief is all it takes. Gosh, progress. I'm sure at least some the ones I saw were talkies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzhSd3qTZAs >>> Because you're worth it! >> >> Or a skilled shoplifter. > > Take everything in your stride. Tsk. Not to be taken internally. [..] > > Dangerous stuff that DHM. > > O? O-ptional. > >>> Why smear fermented faecal bacteria on your face? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzhSd3qTZAs ¡Oy! ¡Poxipol! Where was the catchphrase? > >>> Because you're worth it! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tsk. Not to be taken internally. Simplicity itself. -- VB [Burgoo on goo] >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzhSd3qTZAs > > ¡Oy! ¡Poxipol! Where was the catchphrase? Right at the end, but time marches on. Now it's just (la señora, clutching cheek), "¿Y ahora?"; magic formula (don't know if the abracadabra is Argentine or imported); and mover (in an American accent), "Poxipol!" Speaking of slathering it on, The Hon. Tony Clement, under fire for being the mouth of Sauron in the matter of the mugging of next year's census, and still being hooted at for the tons of pork he injected into his riding on the occasion of the recent Police Brutality Summit in Ontario, was briefly shown in a new light when he threw himself into troubled waters last weekend to rescue a lady floating by his cottage in distress. Since he didn't manage the job, having indeed to be pulled from the waves himself, it was amazingly lucky that friends and family, who presumably know him better than I want to, were stationed downstream to effect the final rescue, after the lady, or Jenny, had providentially discovered that she could stay alive a little longer by floating on her back. The incident, which had IMO the unmistakable smell of PMO, seems to have sunk without much of a trace. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-reviews-are-in- and-they-are-not-kind-to-tony-clement/article1654547/> [pennies for the gal] >[Burgoo on goo] >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >[pennies for the gal] Have you been taking writing lessons from Mr Lyle?  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> [Burgoo on goo] >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Have you been taking writing lessons from Mr Lyle? <blush> You're too kind. No, I mean that. Oh. >>> [Burgoo on goo] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> ><blush> You're too kind. No, I mean that. Oh. It was a compliment of the highest order. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> [Burgoo on goo] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> > It was a compliment of the highest order. Thus my crestfallen incredulity, after the first flush. I have been rereading some of the earliest Nero Wolfe mystery novels, looking for a passage where Archie thinks that some evidence he got from a witness ought to acceptable to Wolfe because he "didn't pull her leg for it". That's an interesting and now-uncommon use of the idiom, to mean "deceive" or "trick" instead of the more usual "kid", "wind up", or "take the mickey (out of)". Michael Quinlon won't commit himself to much, at the first URL, but one VS Prasad at answerbag has written a nice short piece on the subject. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pul2.htm http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/449905 >>>> Have you been taking writing lessons from Mr Lyle? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >Thus my crestfallen incredulity, after the first flush. I was not pulling your chain, but you seem to have. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> Have you been taking writing lessons from Mr Lyle? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I was not pulling your chain, but you seem to have. The bells! The bells! >>>> [Burgoo on goo] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> > It was a compliment of the highest order. I'm lost for...er...what are those things I'm lost for called? SignatureMike. >>>>> [Burgoo on goo] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >I'm lost for...er...what are those things I'm lost for called? Young Joey could tell you. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England [...] > Speaking of slathering it on, The Hon. Tony Clement, under fire for > being the mouth of Sauron in the matter of the mugging of next year's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-revi...> Let's see what we can do about that. The alleged dam (which would probably be an alleged weir in English English usage) gets four stars for comfort at The International Guide to Places to Make Love Outdoors. http://www.outdoorlovemap.com/listing/port-sydney-dam The weir/dam is said to be a natural for the 'reverse cowgirl & toe pull combo'. -- VB >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >The weir/dam is said to be a natural for the 'reverse cowgirl & toe >pull combo'. Which I have never heard of. Enlightenment: http://www.advices.vaty.net/2006/10/sex-tricks-hes-never-been-treated-to.html SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Jul 29, 10:26 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >The weir/dam is said to be a natural for the 'reverse cowgirl & toe > >pull combo'. > > Which I have never heard of. Enlightenment:http://www.advices.vaty.net/2006/10/sex-tricks-hes-never-been-treated... I was equally naive on this topic. The cowgirl would need to be sure that her companion did not suffer from gout. The procedure described would undoubtedly render a gouty groper even more testy than usual. It's interesting that 'testy' seems to be the most apt word for the behavioural symptoms of gout - though I've found that this is not a topic that the gouty thank one for raising. [...] >> Let's see what we can do about that. The alleged dam (which would >> probably be an alleged weir in English English usage) gets four stars [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Which I have never heard of. Enlightenment: > http://www.advices.vaty.net/2006/10/sex-tricks-hes-never-been-treated-to.html Ah, "enabling the poorest of the poor to improve their own lives": one can hardly demur. And being "between vagina and amis" sounds like an easy choice to me. (I'm tempted to guess which novelist arranged that typo, but he might sue.) Any cowgirl reading this should avoid the ingrown nail on my left big toe, though: that could ruin a beautiful friendship. SignatureMike. >[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >ingrown nail on my left big toe, though: that could ruin a beautiful >friendship. If you are ever set/sat upon by a cowgirl watch out for her spurs. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) ... >If you are ever set/sat upon by a cowgirl watch out for her spurs. Cue: The Farrelly Brothers (leading exponents of Country and Western-Suburbs music) I knew a western lady She loved the way I walked She loved the jingle-jangle of my spurs (yee-ha!) I used to sit her on my knee And stories I would tell And these were the words my true love said to me (two three four) Wearing your spurs Wearing your spurs Wearing your spurs too high (yee-hah!) She said you give me a thrill When I sit on your knee 'Cause you're wearing your spurs too high. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. [making love near water] >> The weir/dam is said to be a natural for the 'reverse cowgirl & toe >> pull combo'. > > Which I have never heard of. Enlightenment: > http://www.advices.vaty.net/2006/10/sex-tricks-hes-never-been-treated-to.html TLI, TLI. >[making love near water] >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >TLI, TLI. <smile> SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The weir/dam is said to be a natural for the 'reverse cowgirl & toe > pull combo'. Wonder how that would work on the way through the Port Sydney rapids. I used to love bodysurfing the easy ones, but those look too short. http://www.photosbygord.com/Pict0498.jpg [ ... ] > Yes, could you expand on the nnnkiness of that last item? In my > ignorance I can see no obvious link between the moisturisers and the > genepool. I note with alarm that the first-listed ingredient, a > solvent, has a safety-rating of only two green spots out of five. Yes, but what does the scale of ratings mean? The first-listed ingredient is water, which one would think would rate more than two out of five! Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden filted: >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >ingredient is water, which one would think would rate more than two out >of five! I thought cosmetics products used "aqua" instead of "water"....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > "CDB" <bellemarec@sympatico.ca> said: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ingredient is water, which one would think would rate more than two > out of five! That was what was so alarming. Fish f.cking in it is the least of our worries these days. > I was going to save this for an SDC question but I'm too itchy to know > what AUE thinks about the ASA's L'Oreal adjudication. (Also, I > couldn't think of a Bifidobacterium question that only insulted the > current French president's honesty.) You wouldn't be the first to do that, but the French president has more serious L'Oréal-related worries at the moment, like whether the main shareholder of L'Oréal (the second richest woman in France) was aided in her tax evasion schemes by her connection with the former treasurer of his party. She apparently owns an island in the Seychelles that her advisors didn't think would interest the fiscal authorities. > At the end of last year, L'Oreal launched a skin cream called Youth > Code. Its campaign was built around the notion that the new cream was [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2010/7/LOreal-%28U K%29-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48743.aspx Not > upheld. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (a) L'Oreal did do some gene-based research, Without knowing _what_ "gene-based" research they did I would say that that was irrelevant. Also I don't know what they mean by "gene-based", a term that is never, as far as I know, used by geneticists or molecular biologists. The link you quote is hopeless: "Working with independent researchers, who? Without this information the statement is meaningless "L'Oréal has determined that when put under stress, certain skin genes linked to epidermal recovery are activated Trivial. What might be interesting wwould be the opposite. It certainly didn't take L'Oréal to "determine" this. "This activation is known as 'gene expression'..." Rubbish. That is not what "gene expression" means. > (b) consumers wouldn't think that 'inspired by' meant 'had a basis > in', Nonsense > (c) moisturizing agents were included in the product. Totally irrelevant. I imagine Ben Goldacre (http://www.badscience.net/) will have some comments on this in a little while. > Nnnk?! > > It's probably true that most adwatchers did see through the 'inspired > by' tosh I doubt that. > but that doesn't make it right. If you're going to legislate > against... bla bla bla. I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. Here's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://genome.jgi-psf.org/biflo/biflo.home.html > (what Bifidobacterium longum is) Signatureathel On 28 July, 18:37, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: [...] > > This is why the complaint was rejected by the ASA: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a term that is never, as far as I know, used by geneticists or > molecular biologists. That was my paraphrase of the ASA's adjudication. TYhe ASA and L'Oreal are guilty of much, but not of that. This is an abstract of some of the independent but still somehow L'Oreal research that inspired Youth Code: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19624730 To do with sensitive, not ageing skin. But never mind. It does show that that poo bacteria might do something to something. Genes must have been prodded in a separate independent inquiry. [...] > I imagine Ben Goldacre (http://www.badscience.net/) will have some > comments on this in a little while. It was on You And Yours this morning. The interviewer was sceptical and slightly indignant; L'Oreal refused to appear or send a statement; the man from the ASA was suavely and wholly unconvincingly suave and unconvincing. He's got a future in advertising, that one. -- VB who reckons Ben Goldacre has jumped the shark |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.