Should adds demonstrate accurate knowledge?

[Chris Stratton]

I've recently been encountering a number of promotional presentations for ballroom products and services which include pictures or statements that seem to show surprising flaws in detailed knowledge of the subject. I tend to notice these due to the combination of being naturally suspicious of any sales pitch for anything, along with being very picky about accurate ballroom technique in myself and others.

Beyond a degree of surprise and dissapointment in the standards of the industry, I'm not quite sure what it means.

For a lot of potential customers, many of these details may be unimportant for a while - yet some of them will also end up being limiting factors, or increase/sustain misconceptions in the dancing and non-dancing public.

It terms of impact on sales, I find these kinds of issues make it impossible to recommend the product or service to dancers who might be in the market for it - both in cases where the issue will probably always be unimportant, as well as in the cases where it could well become important in a short time.

No one would dream of publishing an add without proofreading it (well, actually, that happens a lot too), so why do the technical aspects get less verification? After all, what's being sold is ballroom, not a grammar textbook.

[pygmalion]

I know what you mean, Chris.

I've seen the same thing. I've concluded that, in some cases, the people advertising the merchandise have no idea what it is, and are blindly reselling at a markup stuff they bought wholesale.

Truth be told, though, it inspires me with absolutely no confidence when I run into that type of vendor. Why should I believe their claims, if these salespeople can't even explain their own claims coherently?

It reminds of the time the water softener representative came to my house to try to sell me a system. I, an engineer, was there. No problem. The salesman MAY have been able to slip some mumbo jumbo past me. Probably not, but maybe. But my SO (at the time) was also there, you know, the guy with a PhD in analytical chemistry. It was embarrassing, to see the salesman ripped to shreds when he tried to explain simple chemisty concepts to someone who'd taught university level chemistry for years.

My take? If you don't know it, don't try to sell it.

[Laura]

No one would dream of publishing an add without proofreading it (well, actually, that happens a lot too),

You mean an "ad" as in the short form for advertisement, right? :-)

[DanceMentor]

If you ever see such ads on Dance Forums (at the bottom), please don't hesitate to contact me. I certainly want quality if at all possible.

[squirrel]

Chris, you are so right about this! People don't bother to make sure they are selling quality... and of course they should have the good taste to check if the items advertised are indeed what they should be...

[etchuck]

Credibility and reputability should be important. I personally have not gone overboard and started spending money in products for my dancing. The prices are pretty insane as it stands.

That goes to saying the other aspect of credibility. I'm glad to say that some people I know (this is a theoretical discussion, I really know nobody ;) ), are "national champion" dancers in ... say, swing. If you've followed the swing thread about this, you'll realize, there is no such beast. What do you do about those people who promote themselves in a rather less-than-accurate way?

[Laura]

I laugh. I'm serious. A few years ago a couple of people told me their teacher was the 10-dance champion at Blackpool. I knew the teacher in question, and I told the students that first of all Blackpool doesn't have a 10-dance Championship, and second of all said teacher had never competed in Latin (and I had people who have known him for the past 15 years back me up on that).

The other story I love is when people call themselves the US Champion, and then you find out it was in a closed system such as Arthur Murray or Fred Astaire. Not to take anything away from AM or FA Nation-wide Champions, but it's not the same as winning the NDCA Championships simply because they're not open to all comers.

[Chris Stratton]

There's putting an optimum face on things - such as omitting the fact that a title was earned in a closed context or a certification is not from the body people usually associate with the field. I don't like this, but if not taken to the point of strong deception it is pretty standard salesmanship. My concern about this is also moderated by not putting all that much personal trust in claims, prefering to form my own opinion based on things like visual cleanliness, clarity, logic and utility of explanatations, etc.

A different issue is unintentinonally or carelessly revealing an apparent lack of knowledge or consistent attention to detail. This is more of an honest mistake, but it actually worries me more as I can't help but wonder what other problems might exist that I don't yet know enough to notice.

[Pacion]

Attention to detail is very important for me. I have to do it/display it in my job and one letter omitted/in the wrong place could change the WHOLE meaning of the sentence and in some cases, can be 'rude'/offensive :? Yes mistakes happen but the technical information does need to be correct/accurate otherwise, I am buying the 'wrong' product.

[cocodrilo]

Indeed, some of those ads don't add up and we should exercise common sense and ignore them! :wink:

[Sagitta]

I agree. :)