Sunday, 26 April 2009

straw dogs

what idiots believe this mess?

what the hell is "lash impact" and how do you measure it to a point where you can promise 12x (1200 per cent) more?

i decided to investigate.

my first stop was the l'oreal website, where the most relevant module seemed to be "the magic of research." it was here that i learned three thousand l'oreal scientists conduct tests using a 'safety robot.'

i was also pretty interested in a module about hair science:


moving on.
i really need to know about lash impact and how you measure it.
a google search took me to the website of a company called 'rimmel' which apparently isn't a thing you do with a drunk girlfriend and some cling-film.
instead, it's a place where you can get 'the london look' which i can only assume is making your face look like oxford street.

rimmel have a device which not only gives you more lash impact, but has a breakthrough zero clump applicator! after breathing a sigh of relief i searched for more, but found that someone called ivy felt the need to write on the rimmel web-community wall, and only gave it 2 out of 4 stars. i deduced that the rimmel website is not to be trusted.

someone who can be trusted is jesus. and a quick mulling over of my whole dilemma brought the realisation that no-one could know more about lash impact than the son of god. i mean, have you seen that scene in the passion of the christ?

i counted 3 lash impacts in the trailer alone:

but jesus existed before science, and as yet no journal has been found about his discoveries. only 40 lashes are even mentioned so it's unlikely to have provided any definitive or convincing results anyway.

a chap called max factor came to the rescue with the first scientific sounding piece of information so far,
"New False Lash Effect Mascara doubles your lash size... [defined as] thickness volume, appearance vs bare lashes.
The result is 100% impact. 100% you."

at last, we've started finding quantifiable figures. i was confused that i could somehow ever be less than 100% me, but that's another experiment for another lonely day.

max factor's own ultimate measurement is lipfinity although it is more to do with your mouth. however the whole range allows you to "unleash your lash potential." this takes us into a whole new area as - remembering snippets of semi-useful information from my failed physics a-level - potential energy, once unleashed, usually becomes kinetic energy. now we're in the arena of energy changes and of measurable impacts, and we can begin to work out size increases from known widths/lengths of eyelashes.

it feels like we're making progress, doesn't it?

an eyelash is somewhere in the region of 18-80 micrometres, although that can be increased by using sovages eyelash maximizer (pictured) which coats your lash in a sort of waterproof organic syrup that dries into a microscopic cement. it is also marketed as unbreakable which is a relief, judging by how tough a life my eyelashes have. keep them rugged, that's the answer. is a site where you can find a wealth of useful and accurate information...

i was surprised at the weight of something so small, but science is full of surprises.

my final resource, a company that i thought could help me make sense of these measurements and their impact forces on the human body. an organisation that i thought would provide actual scientific help was a company who take great care to measure impacts, and the results of them. the european new car assessment programme...

...who throw things at walls and see just how different factors affect the impact. most of the data is gathered from crash test dummies though, and their internal accelerometers aren't geared up to tell us about the fluctuating effects of mascara. the one website i thought would tell us the most, has failed. suddenly all the good work we've done has come to nothing and we're back to relying singularly on the information we can collect from the advert itself. this is quite difficult as when eva longoria is on screen i find it difficult to think about anything other than what she would look like on all fours.

while i was doing that i asked my girlfriend to take an in-depth look at the advert. while i was wiping up, she mentioned the small-print which - as we all know - is there to prevent court cases. small print means that companies can get you to buy anything and when it doesn't work they can say "look at the small print" and the small print says may not work.

i should've looked there first admittedly, but as i mentioned: i was thinking about cats. if i had been watching harder & faster i would have noticed this:
and then i could've easily worked out out all i needed: 79% agree, tested on 60 women. simple, brilliant.
all you need to do is get a majority of tested people to agree with your nonsense idea and you can claim it as sacrosanct. a bit like how british politics works.

i would hope that the whole test would be an elaborate day of experimenting, with l'oreal demonstrating different mascaras, experimentees having to place their feelings of personal impact on a sliding scale, re-tests, control examples, comparisons under different weather conditions and more.
i would expect they just got the women in a locked room said "look! lashes with our mascara on are 1200 percent more impact-ey," and asked them if they agreed. the majority of them said yes, so they could put it in the ad.

79% actually.

79% of 60 women.


47.4 women.



maybe one of them was the star of this high-brow publication: =>

...which seems to be a good place to stop, you'll be pleased to know.
next week i'll be looking at this and investigating levels of prismatic hair.

No comments: