Well, see, what you do is look for something sciencey like an amino acid (I know, let's choose argenine) then you shorten the name to make it punchy and add the word "pro" before it. Then pluralise it to make it more than it is. Pro-Argenins! No cosmetic is any good now unless it has incredients prefixed with pro.
Then you call it something new so it sounds like a new product, i.e. instead of foundation you call it resurfacing confactant.
Then you make up some perceived wisdom (i.e. that there are seven signs of aging). You pick seven because people then associate it with something established like the seven wonders of the world or the seven deadly sins, and you thus imply that these "signs" of aging were found on ancient stone tablets (as opposed to written last week by ad men).
Then, you shoot an ad which shows molecules of crapfactant hitting skin cells and making them perk up a bit. In the ad the molecule will be the same size as the skin cell, despite a skin cell being 100,000,000,000,000 times bigger than a molecule. The molecule will also be shaped like a snooker ball despite molecules being nothing like that.
Then all you need for your advert is a glowing model, despite her being the last person in the world who actually needs the product, like spectacles for people without ears.
Why is it so bad that life has no meaning?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Tell us more about this exciting development....
--
dappled
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
5
5
Well, see, what you do is look for something sciencey like an amino acid (I know, let's choose argenine) then you shorten the name to make it punchy and add the word "pro" before it. Then pluralise it to make it more than it is. Pro-Argenins! No cosmetic is any good now unless it has incredients prefixed with pro.
Then you call it something new so it sounds like a new product, i.e. instead of foundation you call it resurfacing confactant.
Then you make up some perceived wisdom (i.e. that there are seven signs of aging). You pick seven because people then associate it with something established like the seven wonders of the world or the seven deadly sins, and you thus imply that these "signs" of aging were found on ancient stone tablets (as opposed to written last week by ad men).
Then, you shoot an ad which shows molecules of crapfactant hitting skin cells and making them perk up a bit. In the ad the molecule will be the same size as the skin cell, despite a skin cell being 100,000,000,000,000 times bigger than a molecule. The molecule will also be shaped like a snooker ball despite molecules being nothing like that.
Then all you need for your advert is a glowing model, despite her being the last person in the world who actually needs the product, like spectacles for people without ears.
Two rants in one day! Good times!