Sep 26 2009

Beware of Buyer 9 – How much is enough?

Adel Gabot

(First published on 09/23/2009 12:37 AM; http://abs-cbnnews.com)

toothpasteUnlike most people, I’ve always been fascinated by ads, and sometimes instead of tuning out, I actually sit down and focus more when the commercial break comes on. For me, ads are fun and educational, at least the first time you see them. When I’m abroad, I pay special attention to the TV not just to watch the shows, but to see what passes for advertising in that country.

I look for two major reasons. One, for the creative aspect. Making a commercial is the equivalent of writing a short story. Contrary to common sense, making something short, and making it good is much harder than making something long; the ability to convey many ideas and concepts and be stylish and artful at the same time is easy when you can do it at leisure, like in a 1000-page novel or a two-hour movie. To do the same thing in a three-page short story or a 30-second commercial is way harder to do by far.

The second reason is I like to find new ways to be effective in conveying the message, whether it be to sell a world-changing idea, or to sell panty shields. Being in the business, it’s of special interest to see how everyone’s doing (or not doing) it.

So now I’m going to ask you guys what seems like a totally unrelated question: How much toothpaste do you put on your toothbrush in the morning?

If we are to believe our TV ads, to make our breath fresh and our teeth sparkling white, we’d need to put a generous squeeze on that tube and create a long glossy couple of inches of paste stretching the length of the toothbrush, ending in a artsy upturned flourish at the end.

But think about it—how much is really enough?

A colleague of mine mentioned he’d gone to a workshop where they were taught how to make the most of their resources, and he mentioned that you actually just need a tiny amount of toothpaste to do the job. Just a little dollop, a tiny pea-sized lump on your brush can just as effectively make your breath fresh and your teeth sparkling white.

I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve never bought into that consumerist myth of more is more. Instinctively, I knew I didn’t need that much damn toothpaste, and my whole life I had been squeezing pea-sized dollops from the tube. Not just because I wanted to scrimp and save and draw out as much use out of a tube of toothpaste as I can, but I felt a whole caterpillar-long amount was really excessive. And, I suspect, a lot of you do too.

Of course, the ads would show the pretty model squeezing out as much as she can fit on the brush. Traditionally, they’ve been squeezing with abandon since TV ads were invented. Of course it’s a no-brainer to realize they do this not only to make the shot look more attractive, but in the process increase consumer consumption, and subsequently increase sales. More is more.

So much for truth in advertising.

As far as the amount is concerned, according to the Chicago Dental Society, there is an actual word for the proper measurement. It’s nirdle, which means a very thin layer of paste roughly the length of the bristles on the toothbrush. A nirdle should be just right for that sparkly white teeth and fresher fresh breath.

Most resources say, in reality, toothpaste is just an aid in dental hygiene, and for adults, a simple dry brush and rinsing with water would be just as effective cleaning the teeth, while children and older people would do better with a wet brush. Additionally, just using dry or wet brushes without paste would reveal potential problem areas such as bleeding at the gum line, locations of which would be lost in all that foam in the mouth.

Admittedly children could be coaxed to brush more easily with the various pleasant fruity tastes of the toothpaste marketed for them (and more often than not would make them swallow rather than spit). But without supervision, children would tend to imitate what they see on TV and put that much on their brushes. The copious amounts shown in ads are certainly too much for kids, and their inadvertent swallowing would introduce excessive amounts of fluoride into their young bodies.

They can argue that toothpaste may have some cosmetic use as an abrasive whitener or breath freshener, but the abrasion would eventually erode the tooth enamel, and the alcohol in the freshener would dry the mouth. They can say it functions as a convenient delivery system to add fluoride, but since nowadays we get fluoride from drinking water, it’s largely superfluous. Additionally, research shows a lot of the other additives tend to be harmful in the long term.

In point of fact, it’s not even clear that toothpaste is as essential to dental hygiene as much as a toothbrush and water are, much less the question of how much toothpaste to use.

And the misleading ads aren’t confined to dental products.

You see models pour generous quantities of shampoo into their hands and massage it into their hair for gloriously rich, foamy lather. Looks great on TV, right? In truth, the recommended amount of shampoo is a tablespoon’s worth for long hair, even less that for short. Mix the amount into a bit of water and lather it into your hair. After shampooing, also know that using two teaspoons worth of conditioners is more than enough, otherwise it’ll weigh your hair down.

Two teaspoons would also be the right measurement for mouthwash when you gargle, not half a glass, and remember that next time when you’re at the beach, a shot glass worth of sunscreen should be enough to cover your whole body, not half the bottle.

We’ve all grown up with these ads on TV. Generations of us have gone through life accepting them as gospel truth because no one’s told us any better, so we never give them much thought. If we let them, manufacturers and advertisers will of course always try to get away with whatever they can. It’s the nature of the beast. I think it’s up to us to say when enough is enough.

You can write to Adel at Adel_Gabot-CTL@abs-cbn.com, and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/adelgabot.


Sep 19 2009

Beware of Buyer 8 – Going up in smoke

Adel Gabot

(First published 0n 09/16/2009 12:00 AM; http://abs-cbnnews.com)

smoking_1a1Who would have thought graphic, disturbing pictures, like those showing a dead fetus lying amidst cigarette butts, or gangrenous feet, or ugly, bleeding mouth sores, or throats bulging with massive red tumors or black lung tissue would be so widely distributed, and even legally mandated?

I’m talking about cigarette packaging, of course.

Those of you smokers who travel have seen these pictures on cigarette packs abroad. In Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, everywhere. These caring and enlightened governments have long ago made it a law that cigarettes packaging must carry graphic images of diseases and the effects of tobacco on our health, in an aggressive effort to scare people off smoking. The more graphic the pictures, the better to convince people to kick the habit.

Canada, which started doing this in 2000 with a picture of mouth cancer, is now contemplating upping the ante by putting the actual deathbed photos of anti-smoking activist Barb Tarbox, as she looked, emaciated, and withered just before her recent death from cancer.  Their research has shown that the photos elicit an even more intense response from smokers than the usual diseased body parts.

More recently, the United States, which had limited health warnings on cigarette packaging to a short, small text-only message from the Surgeon General on the side of the box, is now about to implement similar graphic pictorial warnings on 50% of the front and back of the pack. President Barack Obama, who is a smoker himself trying to quit, signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act last June 22 that imposes this law on tobacco companies, in addition to a cigarette “sin tax” he imposed in April that raised the tax from 39c to $1.01 per pack to discourage smoking.

I don’t smoke, and I never have, but my father, a soldier who fought in the Korean War and is a retired military officer smoked like a chimney when he was young and in the army. A two-pack-a-day Lucky Strike man, it nearly killed him, until he quit cold turkey. As a child, I remember sitting on his knee, fascinated by the smoke coming out of his mouth and nose, like it was some cool parlor trick, and thought to myself, when I grow up, I’m gonna do that too, yes I was. But I saw the agony he went through recovering, and then dealing with the withdrawal.  I never picked up a cigarette.

Continue reading


Sep 12 2009

Beware of Buyer 7 – Thinking Different

Adel Gabot

(First published 0n 09/09/2009 12:11 AM; http://abs-cbnnews.com)

leopardIn our country, buying a computer system is a weird concept—it means buying hardware. Period.

Yes, I can imagine you agreeing and nodding your head. So why is that weird again? It’s weird because that’s just half the purchase. A computer system is hardware and software. One doesn’t work without the other. And the last time I checked, most software isn’t free.  It isn’t?

The conflict is rooted in the old-fashioned belief that if it isn’t tangible, if it isn’t a material thing, it’s hard to ascribe any financial value to it. It’s the whole crux of the concept of intellectual property. Pay for software? Really pay for it, not get pirated copies in the basement of Makati Cinema Square for P90 each? Why? It’s not like they’re processors, or RAM, or hard disks, or flat-screen monitors or gaming video cards or anything real like that. It’s just …software! Pakopya na lang!

People in most third-world countries have this deep-set idea that software is an afterthought, an accessory for the computer, and consequently should come “free” with the hardware. (Sure, open source is nice, but face it, the good stuff is in the commercial apps.) With branded computers it’s factored into the cost. But that makes the whole package expensive so we just assemble our own and get the software from MCS, or borrow installers from the office geek.

Fact is, hardware and software are often separate commercial enterprises, and hence separate purchases, with software often costing more. And to a lot of people the idea of “one copy, one install” is patently ridiculous and impossible to swallow. What? Whaddaya mean one per computer? I bought one already! Ok na yan for the whole company!

Continue reading


Sep 5 2009

Beware of Buyer 6 – Wrong Mistakes

Adel Gabot

(First published 0n 09/02/2009 2:18 AM; http://abs-cbnnews.com)

district9poster

When I wrote about Avatar last week, I got a few comments chiding me for writing a kinda/sorta movie review when this column is supposedly for consumer issues. Worse yet, it wasn’t even a review for a real movie, it was a review of a preview for a few minutes of something that is still in production.

Why, a movie isn’t a consumer product anymore? Everything is, these days. I won’t even get into the argument that the Avatar preview was a glimpse into the direction that movies are heading, which is a very important point. Products don’t have to be material things like canned food or cosmetics; they can well be novels, plays, TV shows and movies. I’m actually doing research for a consumer review of our presidentiables, which you’ll probably get to read sometime in November when they actually file for candidacy and I get a more definite product line-up.

That said, at the risk of being perceived as an entertainment column, I’m doing another movie-related thing today. Not exactly a review, but a criticism of certain practices involving film releases in this country. (I would love to get into a full-blown discussion of ratings and censorship, but this space would hardly be adequate for something like that.)

I speak about the very provocative and intense District 9, a science-fiction movie directed by Neill Blomkamp and produced by Peter Jackson that manages to criticize and skewer everything that’s wrong with us. Basically the movie is about how humans deal with a refugee flood of aliens derogatorily called “prawns.” It talks of discrimination, apartheid, poverty and squalor, avarice, corporate greed, prostitution, crime, gun control, weapon production, immorality, perversion and human atrocities, and features wholesale murder and extreme scenes of butchery and violence.

Which the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, in its infinite wisdom, ratesPG-13 and banners in print ads that it’s been released without cuts. And then cuts out scenes anyway. The wrong ones.

Continue reading