Skip to main content

You are repeating yourself, Gloria

As Christmas approaches I'm spending quite a lot of time in the car (sometimes enjoying stunning snow-frosted landscapes, but that's a different story). At this time of year I confess I listen to Classic FM a bit, as I enjoy the Christmas music. But something is driving me away - an advert voiced by one Gloria Hunniford.

Our Gloria is advertising Benecol, a range of products containing plant stanol which apparently partially blocks the intake of cholesterol in the diet with the useful effect of lowering cholesterol levels.

I have no particular problem with the product (though I've a suspicion that you would need quite a lot of it to have a similar effect to the cholesterol lowering medication you can get from your doctor) - but I am really irritated by the way the advert begins. 'A while ago,' says Gloria, 'I used to have high cholesterol' (or words to that effect). The important thing is that she says 'A while ago I used to have...' Now that's just repeating yourself. Either 'A while ago I had high cholesterol' or 'I used to have high cholesterol' but not both. If consuming Benecol makes you repeat yourself, it's a touch worrying.

Thanks to Rob for pointing out this advert was for Flora Pro-activ, not for Benecol. I was so distracted by the irritating language, I missed the product name!

Comments

  1. Hi - the advert is for Flora.proactiv, although there's another similar advert running for Benecol at the moment.

    I actually get annoyed by this advert for a different reason. It's the way she says "so, there's no more debate" and "it's been proven again and again". She comes across as so keen to persuade that it makes me more suspicious about the claims!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It shows how much I listen to the adverts. You are right, it's Flora Pro-activ.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well Brian, you can rest assured that at least the badly scripted ad isn't working. Biggest advertising fail = people remember the ad but not the product name...

    Have a great christmas, chuck.

    Niki x

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Niki - hope you have (had) a good one too!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nicole.lascurain@healthline.com20 November 2015 at 17:42

    Hi Brian,

    First off, I came across your site and wanted to say thanks for providing a great heart-healthy resource to the community.

    I thought you might find this article helpful to your readers who are trying to lower their cholesterol, as it shows photos of what 100% of your daily value of cholesterol looks like. It’s quite shocking! http://www.healthline.com/health/high-cholesterol/daily-value

    Naturally, I’d be delighted if you share this article on http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2009/12/you-are-repeating-yourself-gloria.html , and/or share it with your followers on social to help them make better food choices. Either way, keep up the great work Brian!

    All the best,

    Nicole Lascurain | Assistant Marketing Manager
    p: 415-281-3100 | e: nicole.lascurain@healthline.com

    Healthline
    660 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94107
    www.healthline.com | @Healthline

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nicole,
      I’m in a good mood so I won’t delete your advert, despite your not noticing that the post was about bad use of English, not cholesterol consumption. Unfortunately, though, your web page is out of date. Here’s the recommendation from the 2015 Dietary Guidlines Advisory Committee that the USDA recommendation was based on:

      Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report.

      You are correct that foods high in transfats, for instance, are bad for cholesterol levels, but consuming cholesterol is no longer considered a problem.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope