There has recently been an advert for Flora Pro Active in which Lulu gets some cholesterol test results. It looks like part of a longer campaign but advertisers cannot guarantee that people will see the rest of the work so it should be judged in isolation.
Lulu is at home. She tells us that her three weeks of eating Flora Pro Active are up and she is waiting for the results of her cholesterol test. The call comes, Lulu listens and her eyes grow huge. “Whoa,” she says, “4.7.” Her brow furrows as she does a quick mental calculation, “that means 15% reduction in bad cholesterol.” We see a shot inside Lulu’s fridge. She tells us that; “if you put your mind to it you can do it.” And we fade out.
This spot falls foul of a number of common advertising errors: it plays fast and loose with statistics, it features the singer, Lulu, it credits her with expertise she does not have and it has her saying, “Whoa,” in an annoying faux American/Scottish voice.
Let us consider a few of these errors in more detail.
First, a simple mistake in logic: Lulu may be able to sing the song — Shout — very loudly, but that gives us no reason to believe that she is an expert on the body’s capacity for fat absorption.
This confusion is common in modern life. Jamie Whyte covers the issue very well in his book, Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking. People with expertise in one area are automatically assumed to have expertise in another. Men in pubs will often tell you that we only use 10% of our brain capacity, and that, “Einstein said that.” Einstein saying it, is given as proof of the statements veracity. Whether he did in fact say it is not important. What is important is that Einstein was a physicist not a neurologist. Whatever he may or may not have said about brain function has no greater value than the pronouncements of your mum. Unless, of course, your mum is a neurologist. But I don’t think she is.
The fact that anyone might accept Lulu as an authority on body fat may be linked to a wider retreat from rationalism. People have become very sneery of scientists and doctors and pieces of medical evidence that has passed a stringent double blind test. At the same time they have become absolutely dim for homeopathy, reiki massage, spirit guides, star signs, magic invisible creatures and all sorts of medieval snake oil. Lulu is light entertainer; she is not someone you should instinctively turn to for medical advice.
Lulu gives us a series of figures, out of context, and we are expected to accept the conclusions she draws from them. She tells us that her cholesterol result is 4.7. Is this a good cholesterol result for an ageing singer or is it a bit steep? Lulu’s grinning face suggests that 4.7 is a good figure but we should be wary of taking her face as evidence. Lulu strikes me as a woman who grins quite easily; whether or not it is appropriate. She might grin and chuckle all day and still drop dead of a giant heart attack – the shape of her mouth and the amount of deadly fat in her arteries are entirely unrelated.
When Lulu frowns and calculates that 4.7 means she has experienced a 15% reduction in bad cholesterol something rings extremely false. How does she get from 4.7 to 15%? It seems like a very fast and complicated piece of mental arithmetic. I was unaware that Lulu had such a keen mathematical brain. And what is 4.7 a measurement of anyway – joules, kilograms, florins? Many things are being assumed that ought to be proven. What else has Lulu eaten in the three weeks? Who ran her cholesterol test – was it Phil Collins? And what is bad cholesterol and how much of its reduction can be definitely linked to Flora Active?
Beyond the statistical gape Flora Active make a grave mistake in their choice of front woman.
Many people don’t like Lulu and will feel no warmth for a company that has helped her reduce her cholesterol and therefore stay alive even longer. She is always singing and making a noise and being on TV. Casting is very important in advertising. If Sean Connery tells me to eat more cancerous factory pies I will probably go for it. Sean Connery is cool. If Sean Bean tells me to do it he can get stuffed. A lot of great actors will not do commercial work, but as a general rule of advertising, Lulu should not be cast in anything – except perhaps a massive hole in the ground with an anvil tied to her face.
The setting of the advert does not help things either. It is filmed in a house that seems to have been cleared out by the bailiffs. Did Lulu have to do this selling job to pay for some new furniture? I feel sorry for her if she did but I think the advertisers make a mistake by letting us see the empty shell in which she lives. I think it undermines her credibility.
Lulu still has a fridge but there is nothing in it except Flora products and she has stuck a Flora magnet on the fridge door. Obviously she is mad and is obsessed by Flora and that’s why they thought she would be a good person to represent their brand. But this is another mistake. Very few people aspire to being mad and having no food in their fridge except margarine and yoghurt. Flora has targeted their campaign too narrowly.
This advert is weird and wrong on a number of levels but most particularly in making the product synonymous with the perpetuation of Lulu. This raises an important philosophical question. Is it better to live a long and healthy life, full of yoghurt, milk, margarine products and Lulu, or is it better to live a short, fast, Lulu-free existence, smoking cigarettes, drinking pints of gin – vodka top – sherry chaser – and dropping dead early due to too much very bad cholesterol?
Something for us all to ponder.
Jonathan Thake is a copywriter at HHCL/Red Cell.