var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

GuinevereRucker

September 12, 2009 5:19 AM

Moderate | Flag for review

In any advertisement, companies seek to bypass your logical thought process and get you to buy things you normally wouldn't.

I view any and every advertisement with suspicion by default. Companies may even be telling you the truth, but always in convoluted ways that subtly manipulate your thought process.

View every sticker, label, phrase, picture, stamp, and banner with caution. Ask yourself how you are being manipulated, and what the advertising *isn't* telling you.

After doing this for years, I am able to effectively resist almost any advertisement by poking it full of holes immediately.

This label is no different. I have no reason to believe it in the first place, so I don't.

12 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

TVarmy

September 12, 2009 7:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: I don't know if I'd be that harsh. I'd say that advertising is ultimately corporate persuasion, so you just need to take any advertisement with a grain of salt, just like when you read an op-ed column or debate something with a friend.

Really, at best an ad can be some facts presented with bias that can be a good springboard for doing your own research. At worst, the ad lies outright, which is illegal. Once you accept these precepts, you can't be ripped off so easily.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

September 12, 2009 4:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Well thought out and said. There's an old book by Vance Packard called The Hidden Persuaders. It may be out of print but if you can get it, it's worth reading. It tells how the advertising industry uses cues to direct your thought process about a product.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 12, 2009 6:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: I'd recommend The Age of Propaganda as well. Similar topic, a bit more recent-although I'll be looking into The Hidden Persuaders as well.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sneeje

September 12, 2009 4:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: I think we all do that to some extent, however, given general knowledge of human nature and psychology, I would hesitate to believe you have removed yourself from all influence.

Unless you have reached a higher plane of consciousness, I suspect you are subject to the same subconscious influences as the rest of us.

$\"user-pic\"$

GuinevereRucker

September 13, 2009 8:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sneeje: You're right, I'm pretty susceptible to manipulation in ads of things I like, such as anything Mac related :)

But anything else I think I'm pretty good at resisting! And I think my general premise holds true; that is to take all advertising as a sort of propaganda at face value, and to logically question it.

This doesn't mean I'm immune to influence, it means I have my guard up. I also try to avoid ads, which is why I no longer own a TV. It's just constant ads :(

$\"user-pic\"$

September 12, 2009 4:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sneeje: Exactly. We're not actually conscious of most influences and motivations, so we're really not in a position to say what's working at what isn't.

But I agree with Eyebrows about the dated feel of the seal anyway. I'm not sure that many people use it as a buying criterion, just that enough advertisers think it might to find advertising in GH worthwhile. To me it says \"food for the backyard anti-nuke shelter.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

September 12, 2009 3:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Now if only a good portion of the public had a quarter of the sense you do when it comes to...well, almost anything. Instead, well...yeah. You know.

$\"user-pic\"$

nstonep

September 12, 2009 12:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Is the Good Housekeeping seal a \"seal of fluff\"?

$\"user-pic\"$

Sudonum

September 12, 2009 3:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nstonep:
My sister discovered back in the '70's while working for a firm that had the \"Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval\" that all it took to get the seal was an ad in the magazine. Not sure if there were any criteria for advertising other than cutting a check.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 12, 2009 1:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nstonep: I think it's a seal of \"this is the 1950s, you'll really like this outdated product!\"

I don't know why, it's always struck me as the seal for up-to-the-minute technology in new home products of 1952. I'd be unlikely to think a cleaning product, say, with the Good Housekeeping seal had the latest in green or non-green technology. Cake mixes, they probably haven't changed as much.

Now, where are my pearls? I have to vacuum.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 12, 2009 3:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): That's exactly what I think. Maybe it doesn't help that they haven't changed the GH seal since the 1950's.

$\"user-pic\"$

legwork

September 12, 2009 5:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: What's interesting to me is how this discredits the associated brand. Sure, GH is a business, but allowing themselves to be used in a front-and-center greenwashing campaign? They should have better considered how this could sully their name.

$\"user-pic\"$

mrsultana can't get a password to work

September 12, 2009 5:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: That sounds a very well thought out, intelligent, critical way of deciding the influence you are going to allow advertisements to manipulate you. Bravo!
And to think, I just waste my time doing it by mocking the hell out of every commercial I see on TV. They just make it so darn easy!

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

wrjohnston19283

September 12, 2009 12:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

As a P&G shareholder, I've contacted them several times suggesting they either introduce a line of true \"green\" products, or buy an established company, such as seventh generation or method. Several years ago, Colgate (a PG competitor) bought Tom's of Maine, which doesn't make cleaning products, but at least makes natural personal care products.

What's worse is that P&G found out they weren't the recession proof company they have been in the past. Store brands have gotten better, and many people are paying more for greener cleaning products. PG stock is performing WORSE than the market over both the past 52 weeks as well as YTD. They are on the chopping block for removal from my portfolio this fall if things don't shape up.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Sudonum

September 12, 2009 3:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wrjohnston19283:
Yeah, I'm a P&G shareholder too and I've been disappointed in their performance lately as well. I thought the same thing about people always having to buy soap, etc. during a recession. I'm hanging on a little longer though in hopes that I'll get closer to the purchase price as the market continues to rise.

$\"user-pic\"$

wrjohnston19283

September 12, 2009 12:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wrjohnston19283:

Actually, Colgate has a line of \"free and clear\" cleaning products, as well as \"eco+\", which is better than P&G which say.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 12, 2009 1:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The problem with having a \"Green Seal\" is that the term \"green\" is completely subjective. Green could mean anything that is slightly better than old processes (\"less mercury in our fish!\"), but still not environmentally good. \"We recycled 90% of our paper, which means we still clearcut forests for the other 10%.\" \"Sure this monitor is green, it uses less energy, but never mind that it still contains lead and other dangerous things and will just end up in a dump in China where street urchins will sort through the stuff and chop it to pieces and melt it down to make a quick buck.\"

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 12, 2009 3:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Al Swearengen: I read this as \"sea urchins\" and couldn't figure out how sea urchins would be combing through dumps, though I was impressed that you cared. Ha!

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

September 12, 2009 3:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Al Swearengen: Yes, but too many pundits get rich on that \"all or nothing\" attitude. For example, CFL's contain a tiny bit of mercury, so they're not perfect and so the whole environmental movement is a sham. When the reality is that they're much better for the environment when you consider how much energy they save. Even small things, when combined, can make a big difference. Remember how everyone lambasted Obama for the tire pressure thing? Turns out that simple thing would save more oil than what we'd get from the ANWAR and its sustainable. So, I agree some companies are taking advantage of the environmental movement by repackaging the same product or making nominal changes. But even a small step in the right direction, is better than none.

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

September 12, 2009 4:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If the Good Housekeeping seal is dependent on advertising in the magazine (which the Hearst Corporation seems to deny in the article), then it's meaningless. Consumer Reports may not always be as comprehensive as it might be but it is scrupulously honest buying its products on the open market and refusing advertising. I doubt Good Housekeeping seal meets that standard, even among 1950s housewives.

This is not a paid endorsement of Consumer Reports.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 12, 2009 8:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Thing is, Good Housekeeping stands behind the products that have the seal or are advertised in the magazine. If, within 2 years of purchase, the product is defective, Good Housekeeping will refund the purchase price, regardless of what the actual warranty is. Consumer Reports, great as they are, don't offer a money-back guarantee on their recommended products.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Good Housekeeping

September 12, 2009 6:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Regarding Paul Smalera's piece on The Big Money, \"The Deal with the new Good Housekeeping Seal,\" the story is not only misleading, but the reporting is filled with inaccuracies and omissions, including the basic misstatement that \"…to advertise in the magazine, products must earn the Seal,\" which is false.

Mr. Smalera goes on to write that Good Housekeeping favors advertisers in its editorial coverage, and that an article \"laden with national name brands curiously declined to identify a healthy honey mustard. Instead, a generic icon stuck out like a plain white T-shirt.\" In fact, of the 52 items featured in the story, 28 of the images are of generic items, and 18 are of brands that do not (and have not) advertised in Good Housekeeping. Of the 6 brands pictured that are of advertiser products, the article actually advised against buying 4 of the products.

Good Housekeeping has spent more than 18 months developing the Green Good Housekeeping Seal, along with a board of green industry experts and advisors, to counteract the prevalence of greenwashing in the marketplace.

Mr. Smalera does consumers a disservice by misrepresenting Good Housekeeping and the Good Housekeeping Seal. In fact, the Good Housekeeping Research Institute was first established to protect consumers and today is responsible for evaluating products for editorial coverage, many of which are not advertisers, as well as evaluating Seal products and products advertised in the magazine. If an advertised product does not perform as claimed, Good Housekeeping replaces it or refunds the consumer.

For more information, visit [www.goodhousekeeping.com]

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 12, 2009 10:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My mom got Good Housekeeping for years, and I had a subscription for a long time. They pissed me off so bad recently. They pulled the fake dunning letter on me after I let my subscription lapse (trying to cut back on a bad magazine habit). I sent them an email:

\"To Whom It May Concern:

I received a nasty letter telling me to pay the bill for a subscription to Good Housekeeping which I did NOT order. Previously, I had a subscription to the magazine, but due to the lousy economy and skyrocketing cost of living, I decided to let the subscription lapse. Also, I was tired of the magazine and didn't want it any more.

You apparently renewed it without my permission. Please cancel it immediately and do not send me any more correspondence of this type. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
[real name, on subscription]\"

Their reply:
\"Thank you for contacting Hearst Magazines Customer Service.

As requested, your order has been cancelled. Please disregard any additional invoices you may receive.

Thank you,
Hearst Magazines Customer Service
[CSR name - probably fake]\"

I finally forgave them and I do have a subscription to Cosmo now but if they do that again I'm mailing it back with one of those snake egg noisemakers in the envelope.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 13, 2009 12:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I thought it was an open secret that the GH seal basically meant that product was advertised in the mag. That's all. There may be a guarantee associated with it but that's just the mag trying to look proactive.

On the other hand, there is Consumers Digest which has been bought and sold for years. Every time I see some product claiming a CD endorsement, I figure they couldn't GET a legitimate endorsement so they simply paid for one from CD and hope people didn't know what it actually meant. Depending on the ignorance of the customer to make a sale is just sad.

It's a pity Consumer Reports doesn't allow use of their ratings or name. They're about the only name I actually trust and yet they're the one you can't find on the product label.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

wrjohnston19283

September 13, 2009 7:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If consumer reports allowed the use of their name you would have the bottom rated products with an advertisement \"As Seen In Consumer Reports!\" with the hope that no one actually goes to look at the review.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 13, 2009 4:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

While some people somewhat commented on this, I'm going to say that I'm not associated with Good Housekeeping in any way, but I'm not sure this is a fair statement:

\"and pretty much proves that the product's manufacturer advertises in Good Housekeeping magazine.\"

From what I'm aware, the products that get this seal go through extremely rigorous testing before being awarded the seal. Further, I'd hope that the magazine's writers still have journalistic integrity. Unless there's real proof to that statement, I don't think it's an appropriate one to make.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 13, 2009 9:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ugh, the abuse of genuine environmental concern to leverage sales through misleading marketing (like slapping on a sticker that says \"Green\" or \"All Natural,\" which are meaningless) really makes me angry. For instance, the solar panel on the Prius... I can hardly contain my frustration when I think about it! In case you didn't know, the solar panel is used exclusively for running a small fan to circulate air, which makes absolutely no sense. First, you'd be better off just parking in the shade. Second, you're adding a bunch of weight to a vehicle that's supposedly striving for increased efficiency for a Useless feature.

In case you're interested, I like to write about these things on my blog, such as in the post \"What it Really Means to be Green:\" [rootproblem.blogspot.com]

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 14, 2009 3:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"Any green-label program method uses can and will easily be co-opted by the competition.\"

What? Is this article machine-translated from Japanese or something?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

raconteur

September 14, 2009 6:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: method (no capital) refers to the product brand method, those fancy-bottled soaps and cleaners.

","");