Dumbness Proliferates
I continue to be amazed at today's lack of intellectual rigour in Televisionland and elsewhere.
"6-speed CVT"
The other night I was surprised to see an ad for new cars broadcast on television which displayed the phrase "6-speed CVT".
I immediately scoffed to myself, since the abbreviation CVT stands for "Continuously Variable Transmission", and thus by definition cannot refer to separate discrete speeds. " What a stupid ad!" I thought, "As usual, another triumph of copywriting inventiveness over the actual facts."
This was bad enough, but when I searched the internet for details of the advertisement using the terms "6 speed cvt nz tv advertisement", I was astounded to find that I am not alone, and that the first result presented from "About 7,540,000 results" was a finding of the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority on a complaint concerning the very same advertisement, and that the complaint was not upheld. (Download here, it is only 94kB)
The complainant stated, as I have noted "Of specific concern is the language "6-speed CVT." By engineering, a CVT has neither ratios nor speeds in the traditional sense. The CVT in this vehicle permits the simulation of 6 different engine speeds as per user selection. Implying that this 'performance' model has a 6 speed gearbox is deceptive. Other competing models in this class do have true 6 speed gearboxes - and herein lies the deceptive marketing in this advertisement."
The advertiser blandly sidestepped the issue of correct description of the technology by playing to the angle of whether or not it impinged on the descriptive term "performance". They did this by correctly but irrelevantly stating that the so-called "6-speed CVT" could perform better than a normal 6-speed, so the consumer would not be misled in the sense of being induced to buy an inferior product.
I myself would argue that this doesn't absolve them of using the phrase "6-speed CVT", as it is a plain oxymoron, and could only mislead an idiot, it is the fact that it is a plainly impossible thing which should be considered.
The Authority took the bait however, and missing the point, considering only whether the consumer might be misled: "the reference to “performance” was not misleading in so far as the vehicle’s acceleration was superior compared to that of traditional automatic and manual vehicles." It seemed to think that as long as the letters CVT were in there somewhere, all was OK: "it disagreed the advertisement was likely to mislead consumers into thinking there was a six speed gear box in the vehicle. It said the advertisement was clear in stating, both on screen and in the voiceover, that the vehicle was a “6 speed CVT auto with sport mode."
Thus, with a little misdirection and some muddying of the waters, a stupid conjunction of two mutually exclusive terms is deemed "not misleading", but only by reason that it is so stupidly wrong, nobody will be misled.
So, here we have the result, and I have seen this outcome before. The Authority is not at all concerned with truth, nor with quality, only whether or not something is over the line of the average person's ability to distinguish truth from deception.
You can say any untruth you like, as long as you can claim nobody will be deceived by it.
I immediately scoffed to myself, since the abbreviation CVT stands for "Continuously Variable Transmission", and thus by definition cannot refer to separate discrete speeds. " What a stupid ad!" I thought, "As usual, another triumph of copywriting inventiveness over the actual facts."
This was bad enough, but when I searched the internet for details of the advertisement using the terms "6 speed cvt nz tv advertisement", I was astounded to find that I am not alone, and that the first result presented from "About 7,540,000 results" was a finding of the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority on a complaint concerning the very same advertisement, and that the complaint was not upheld. (Download here, it is only 94kB)
The complainant stated, as I have noted "Of specific concern is the language "6-speed CVT." By engineering, a CVT has neither ratios nor speeds in the traditional sense. The CVT in this vehicle permits the simulation of 6 different engine speeds as per user selection. Implying that this 'performance' model has a 6 speed gearbox is deceptive. Other competing models in this class do have true 6 speed gearboxes - and herein lies the deceptive marketing in this advertisement."
The advertiser blandly sidestepped the issue of correct description of the technology by playing to the angle of whether or not it impinged on the descriptive term "performance". They did this by correctly but irrelevantly stating that the so-called "6-speed CVT" could perform better than a normal 6-speed, so the consumer would not be misled in the sense of being induced to buy an inferior product.
I myself would argue that this doesn't absolve them of using the phrase "6-speed CVT", as it is a plain oxymoron, and could only mislead an idiot, it is the fact that it is a plainly impossible thing which should be considered.
The Authority took the bait however, and missing the point, considering only whether the consumer might be misled: "the reference to “performance” was not misleading in so far as the vehicle’s acceleration was superior compared to that of traditional automatic and manual vehicles." It seemed to think that as long as the letters CVT were in there somewhere, all was OK: "it disagreed the advertisement was likely to mislead consumers into thinking there was a six speed gear box in the vehicle. It said the advertisement was clear in stating, both on screen and in the voiceover, that the vehicle was a “6 speed CVT auto with sport mode."
Thus, with a little misdirection and some muddying of the waters, a stupid conjunction of two mutually exclusive terms is deemed "not misleading", but only by reason that it is so stupidly wrong, nobody will be misled.
So, here we have the result, and I have seen this outcome before. The Authority is not at all concerned with truth, nor with quality, only whether or not something is over the line of the average person's ability to distinguish truth from deception.
You can say any untruth you like, as long as you can claim nobody will be deceived by it.
"Repeat Premiere"
The second occurrence of complete dumbness I have seen on TV recently was the trumpeting of a screening of a movie as a "repeat premiere".
Since a "premiere" (or première, French for "first") is the debut (first public presentation) of a play, film, dance, or musical composition, and since a showing on television of a movie previously shown in theatres cannot be a première, and since they are now presumably showing it for a second time, how can these idiots then produce the gigantically oxymoronic "repeat premiere"?
Is this something like an "experienced virgin", or a "fairly unique" object?
Since a "premiere" (or première, French for "first") is the debut (first public presentation) of a play, film, dance, or musical composition, and since a showing on television of a movie previously shown in theatres cannot be a première, and since they are now presumably showing it for a second time, how can these idiots then produce the gigantically oxymoronic "repeat premiere"?
Is this something like an "experienced virgin", or a "fairly unique" object?