Not that it ever mattered to me personally. Not that I'm the demographic for shampoo or conditioner commercials. I have very short hair and feel that - other than the ingredients in a bottle and some sort of fragrance issue - I am uninfluenced by the quantity or quality of suds or lather as I vigorously scratch through my scalp, letting foam build until I rinse.
So when I see a commercial of a woman seemingly naked mid-shower having some sort of erotic orgasmic gyration, I wonder: who does this appeal to?
It must appeal on some level to some percent of the population for the amount of money invested, not only in producing the commercial but also its airtime costs. The amount of thumbs-up (or a solemn nod or an excited grin) that a group of people in charge of a company's advertising campaign give prior to airing or producing any commercial seems to me to be the QA of the system.
So when I learn that 'sudsing agents' are added as a separate ingredient to detergents in order to make people feel better about their cleaning ritual, it makes me think. Not that I'm influenced or care. (As far as I'm concerned, there is little to save humanity other than just humanity itself...but anyway...)
Do we really need the perception? Really? Do women? Is this similar to bleaching flour or sugar because of a long-standing association (or tradition) being made (white = pure)? Is that all this boils down to?
I find it disturbing, intriguing and strange - all at the same time - so I'm a bit confused as well.
I'm trying to follow the flow. The only reason we have these additional sudsing agents added to detergent unnecessarily except for some traditional aesthetic that's propagated on our culture.
That means that someone, somewhere, at some point, decided that:
(For all those that say: who didn't know that? Well! I didn't! So why is the hygiene industry booming, trusted, believed, unhindered by a mass consumer epiphany and forthcoming retaliation?)
But this is not my point. All this suds business: someone must've either determined this perceptual take based on a personal subjective qualifier or researched people's perception of the quantity of suds relation to the quality of cleanliness. (And what a great and wonderful sociological thesis project that must've been.) But still...
...after the research...after the tests...and after the creation of the sudsiest sudsing agent ever known, we still need the ability for the thumbs up people to say: yes, we should add this to our concoction prior to distribution in order to convince our consumers (based on the thesis study) that they'll experience a deeper level of clean then our competitors, solely because our competitors don't add (or have) the greatest sudsing agent on earth.
I wish I could've been there for that board meeting.
So when I see a commercial of a woman seemingly naked mid-shower having some sort of erotic orgasmic gyration, I wonder: who does this appeal to?
It must appeal on some level to some percent of the population for the amount of money invested, not only in producing the commercial but also its airtime costs. The amount of thumbs-up (or a solemn nod or an excited grin) that a group of people in charge of a company's advertising campaign give prior to airing or producing any commercial seems to me to be the QA of the system.
So when I learn that 'sudsing agents' are added as a separate ingredient to detergents in order to make people feel better about their cleaning ritual, it makes me think. Not that I'm influenced or care. (As far as I'm concerned, there is little to save humanity other than just humanity itself...but anyway...)
Do we really need the perception? Really? Do women? Is this similar to bleaching flour or sugar because of a long-standing association (or tradition) being made (white = pure)? Is that all this boils down to?
I find it disturbing, intriguing and strange - all at the same time - so I'm a bit confused as well.
I'm trying to follow the flow. The only reason we have these additional sudsing agents added to detergent unnecessarily except for some traditional aesthetic that's propagated on our culture.
That means that someone, somewhere, at some point, decided that:
god said:Well, not quite like that. But the standard seems to be just that. Unquestioned resolution that more suds mean a better clean.
In the beginning...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be suds; and there was suds.
And God saw the suds, that it was good: and God divided the clean from the dirty.
(For all those that say: who didn't know that? Well! I didn't! So why is the hygiene industry booming, trusted, believed, unhindered by a mass consumer epiphany and forthcoming retaliation?)
But this is not my point. All this suds business: someone must've either determined this perceptual take based on a personal subjective qualifier or researched people's perception of the quantity of suds relation to the quality of cleanliness. (And what a great and wonderful sociological thesis project that must've been.) But still...
...after the research...after the tests...and after the creation of the sudsiest sudsing agent ever known, we still need the ability for the thumbs up people to say: yes, we should add this to our concoction prior to distribution in order to convince our consumers (based on the thesis study) that they'll experience a deeper level of clean then our competitors, solely because our competitors don't add (or have) the greatest sudsing agent on earth.
I wish I could've been there for that board meeting.
 clipped from www.planetnatural.comQ: Do cleaning products that produce more suds do a better job?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment