Tag Archives: Stephen Matthews

“People have sex!” says pharmacy company launching a range of lubricants

Sex news in the Daily Mail, here, with the revelation that you’re statistically likely(ish) to be having sex at a certain point on a Sunday morning:

Sex O’Clock: Survey reveals 9am on Sunday is the most popular time to get intimate – but don’t expect passion to peak at 9pm on a Tuesday!

You’re not alone if you enjoy morning sex on the Sabbath.

New research shows that 9am on a Sunday is the most popular time of the week for British couples to get busy between the sheets.

While Tuesday at 9pm is the least desirable opportunity for intimacy, according to a survey of 2,000 adults.

Source: Daily Mail, 1st February 2017

The company behind this piece of research?

Commissioned by Superdrug, the results also noted that Saturdays are collectively more popular than every other day.

Ironically enough, Superdrug were also the company who in 2011 claimed, based on equally sound research of theirs, that women only feel sexy once per week – on a Saturday night (except, of course, when they’re buying the requisite products from Superdrug to feel better about themselves).

So I suppose we have to believe that most women have sex when they aren’t feeling sexy, or that over the last six years the social landscape has shifted by around 12 hours like the libidinal equivalents of tectonic plates. Or, perhaps, Superdrug’s research is meaningless PR guff. Motivated PR guff, indeed:

Conveniently, Superdrug co-ordinated their research with the launch a new range of of sexual lubricants.

It’s more than a little rich of the Daily Mail to play the knowing “conveniently” line here, when they conveniently publish PR non-stories like this on a daily basis in their quest for cheap and plentiful clicks.

“You should be worried about all the things that can go wrong!” says insurance company

It’s not uncommon that the Daily Mail features worrying news, but it’s relatively rare that that their worrying news is specifically about worrying:

How much does your worry WEIGH? Quiz allows you to determine if your stress is the equivalent of a feather, a pig or a bear

Ever wanted to know much worry you’re carrying on your shoulders? Well now you can.

From a 100g feather to a 78st grizzly bear, a new interactive tool allows users to get a rough calculation of how much their stresses weigh.

Created using a formula, the ‘weight of worry’ calculator asks people how often they fret about various factors in their life.

Source: Daily Mail, 3rd March 2017

That’s right, this astonishing new interactive tool can actually tell you the weight of your worries! Like that’s a real thing, and like worries are measured by the gram! It’s amazing what they can do with nonsensical marketing science these days, isn’t it?

How might they calculate the weight of your worries, you may well ask? Well, you see, it’s simple: they ask you to rank a range of issues on a scale of 1 to 10:

Then they ask entirely-quantifiable questions, like:

How much time you spend worrying about money / finances each day, in minutes?

How much time you spend worrying about PERSONAL ISSUES each day, in minutes?

How much time you spend worrying about FAMILY each day, in minutes?

If you can’t spot the problem here, consider precisely how anybody is meant to quantify what “time spent worrying” means – do you add up the duration of every thought? Or do you only count time where you’re sitting down actively fretting? What if your mind wanders to money woes while you’re driving – is that counted as time worrying, or time driving? If you have two thoughts lasting 10 seconds, two minutes apart, is that two minutes of worrying or just 20 seconds?

None of these questions are answerable, because time isn’t a meaningful measure of worry, especially in self-reported studies. This is meaningless, non-data.

Still, once they have your meaningless data, they need to do *something* with it – which is why they use a specially-derived (aka ‘made up’) formula to turn your numbers into a weight:


The researchers used the formula 5a+Y+T = X to determine how much someone’s stress may physically weigh,

a = general worry level across all areas of life

Y= total level of other worries in each area of life (family, money, etc.)

T= total time spent worrying

X= weight

And then, obviously, they turn that weight into an equivalent-sized animal:

From a 100g feather to a 78st grizzly bear, a new interactive tool allows users to get a rough calculation of how much their stresses weigh

So that’s obviously bulletproof and rigorous research, and well-worthy of this story’s inclusion in the Daily Mail Health section.

Needless to say, this is not legitimate research, and is merely an advert disguised as science, created by insurance firm LV=:

Politics, economics and social affairs are just three of the potential concern factors in the tool developed by LV=.

The British car, home and life insurance firm has concluded the average weight of worry to be 496lbs (225kg) – similar to that of a panda bear, pig or lion.

Effectively, this spurious and nonsensical stress calculator is just a way of saying, “Hey, people, aren’t you worried that something bad will happen and you won’t be able to afford to pay for it? Get some insurance from us!”.