Hayfever page complaint

mathsstudent

Volcano wrote: »

But for those who cannot or will not learn, a lesson learnt at £15 is better than one at £50 (if the £0 option is not comprehendible to them).

Surely people in this case will not have learnt the lesson at any price?

If we believe that people should not buy this product, and we also know them to be completely irrational when it comes to science, then the next best way we can convince them not to buy it is to increase the price, or at least make it sound more expensive. By reducing the cost of their mistake, we encourage them to make it.

In another forum thread - created by harryharp and linked to on the 'light therapy' page - I asked what made people buy the product in the first place. Harryharp himself replied: "the reason was the very positive reviews. I didn't see any trials, but I thought it was worth a try as it's not very expensive and if it doesn't work I haven't lost much."
Here you can clearly see the fact that he did not look at the science at all, only at the price. If the price was higher, he would probably not have bought it, and thus not perpetuated the idea that it helps in any way at all.

Volcano

mathsstudent wrote: »

If we believe that people should not buy this product, and we also know them to be completely irrational when it comes to science, then the next best way we can convince them not to buy it is to increase the price, or at least make it sound more expensive. By reducing the cost of their mistake, we encourage them to make it.

'Price' is a different issue. I'm no expert at marketing but as far as I can see from similar past 'fads' the tactic is to peg the price of the product to the highest bidder initially (hence uptake by celebrities etc with associated publicity), gradually decreasing the price over months/years until it can be afforded by the masses, as this is the way to maximise profit (how expensive can 6 LEDs + batteries be?).

The "it didn't cost much so I thought I'd give it a go" attitude feeds commerce; From new, multi-bladed razors to new ways of freshening your loo, as long as it's not too much most people will 'give it a go'. Marketers thrive on people not having the time to investigate whether any product actually works or not.

We could go on forever about the pyschology of sales but people will always buy things they don't actually need (alcohol, cigarettes, illegal drugs) and I imagine they easily justify these purchases when they think they could also be of great benefit to them (hence the whole homeopathy industry).

Take a look at: http://www.badscience.net/ and buy the book. It's nice to know you're not alone.

mathsstudent

I already have the book, and know I'm 'not alone' the trouble is that those who think this thing works should be alone!
The difference between this product and say a razor is that this product makes quite specific claims about what it does and how it does it.
"Light therapy is based on the idea of using red light to desensitise nasal passages in a bid to defend you from allergic reactions and reduce inflammation." (From this site's page.)
This is quite a specific claim and it can be tested - does red light have any effect on the sensitivity of your nose? Does it reduce inflamation?
If a razor ad says "95% of users thought it felt great" then they're not making any specific claim about how effective the product is, just that 95% of people (who probably got the razor for free, and who doesn't like something that's free?) who were tested (Did they volunteer? Then maybe they were already looking for a new razor so compared to their old one this felt OK?) liked it. It doesn't then say, "But 90% also said they liked the Tesco Value razor, so maybe you should buy that instead?" does it?

Perhaps the real problem is that people such as yourself, who are obviously aware that this product has no evidence to support it, think it's OK for other people to buy it. You may not recommend it, but you do not stop others from recommending it, nor do you try to tell people who "believe in it" why they shouldn't. You allow the myth to spread and the collective knowledge of the world decrease just a little bit further.

I keep hearing the "well it works for me!" argument, if you can call it that. I keep asking "how do you know it was the nose lights that had the effect?" to which the answer is usually "Look, I'm happy, so leave me alone."

You might be happy thinking you're Napoleon, or that everything around you is a uniform shade of the colour pink (to use a Douglas Adams example) but I'm still going to tell you you're mad.

Volcano

mathsstudent wrote: »

Perhaps the real problem is that people such as yourself, who are obviously aware that this product has no evidence to support it, think it's OK for other people to buy it. You may not recommend it, but you do not stop others from recommending it, nor do you try to tell people who "believe in it" why they shouldn't.

No, I am just aware that whatever you do and however hard you try, there's always going to be a substantial proportion of people who will never, ever get it. My (and your) time and effort is better spent in areas where the potential for damage is far greater. Some shifty company flogging nose lights where the worst case scenario is "it didn't work, my nose is still runny and I'm £50/£15 down" is trivial compared to (e.g.) those peddling herbal cures for cancer/HIV where the possible resultant outcome (death) clearly couldn't be more serious.

mathsstudent

Don't you think that these products, aimed at minor things like hayfever, give the treatment in general a 'foot in the door', so to speak? That is, once we become used to the idea to accepting things without proof for minor things, we become more likely to accept them for big things?
"Well, lights cured my hayfever, so why not my cancer? Afterall, pills cured my headache and pills can treat cancer." The faulty reasoning is obvious, but if you're willing to accept that light can cure hayfever without any evidence then it's not such a huge jump to accepting that it can cure cancer, again without any evidence.