Does IQ Need an IQ Boost?
June 20th, 2008 by Bob Bly
A radio commercial I heard this morning from IQ offers a free CD that promises to “boost your reading speed 1,000%.”
The commercials explains: “you’ll be able to read 10 book in the time it used to take you to read one book” — a tenfold improvement in reading speed.
The only problem is that reading 10X faster is a 900% improvement, not a 1,000% improvement.
It’s a small error. But for a company called “IQ,” I think it damages their credibility a bit.
Do you agree, or once again, am I being too nitpiky?
This entry was posted on Friday, June 20th, 2008 at 7:18 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Took me a minute, and I’m a mathy guy, but yeah, they mean 1000% the speed.
100% faster = twice as fast, 200% faster = 3x as fast, etc.
100% the speed = the same speed, 200% the speed = twice the speed.
People read through something like that so fast they don’t take the time to really parse out what it means (I include myself in “people”). Funny that a company selling read-faster (and I assume “better”) programs would fall into that trap.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Maybe it’s just me, but the claim sounds so utterly ridiculous and untenable that I’m immediately turned off by it.
Even if it’s off by a 100%. The numbers seem fraudulent.
What about just leading with, “Learn the power to read 10x faster and change your life.”? (Or something more down to earth like that.)
If you’re talking to readers, or your a company called “IQ”, you’re mostly likely talking to an educated audience (or an audience that cares about getting smarter). Can’t you get their attention in a more cerebral manner? Or is it necessary to wow them with such astronomical figures?
MAYBE I’M BEING a little too nitpicky. By the way, how much information do you retain when you read 900 or 1000% faster?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Well, the company could do a split-test for “nitpikyness,” to find out whether “900% improvement” in the promise pulls a measurably better response than “1,000% improvement.”
Problem is, to do the test, the company would have to be aware that it made the mistake in the first place.
Of course, the company already tripped up without a split test, so it might be best to counsel the folks who now have to answer its phones to offer a special discount just for paying attention to any smarty pants who catches the mistake .
June 21st, 2008 at 8:09 am
Taking issue with using conditional clauses, or starting a sentence with a conjunction would be “nitpicky.” Suggesting an advertiser take time to consider the accuracy and honesty of their marketing efforts is just plain honest.
I recently encountered the same situation when reviewing copy. The writer had used the word “mindfully” rather than “mentally.” The reason was that “mindfully” was more poetic.
Unfortunately, the letter was for a coaching service for self-improvement. If the prospects were truly being mindful of their mental actions, then there would be little need for the coaching service.
Promoting illiteracy because it reads well says a great deal about the writer. We might all benefit from re-reading David Olgivy: “I do not regard advertising as entertainment or an art form, but as a medium of information.” (Ogilvy on Advertising, 1985, Vintage Books)
June 24th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I don’t think it’s nitpicky. It could be worse. I recently saw a TV ad for a company advertising tutoring help in reading and math. The ad said, “Call now to Receive [sic] $50 off a diagnostic test.”
Would you trust your kid’s education to a company that commits random acts of capitalization?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I’m not a math person, so I don’t quite get the math. Most people hearing that would brush it off as acceptable if they weren’t suspicious of the high claim.
Also, it sounds better than 900%. That’s an unusual number that is harder to warm up to. 1,000% sounds much better. I’m slightly suspicious that perhaps they knew the mistake but ignored it in favor of the better-sounding number. It’s possible, but unlikely. If that’s not so, then they need knew writers/advertisers/marketers
July 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’ve heard that commercial! The math bugged me when I heard it too. I’m not inclined to buy a reading program from someone who sounds like they don’t know what they’re talking about.