to be really irritated by the new weight watchers advert?

[eternalopt]

So they have a new system and declare proudly "we're so confident in our new approach, if you lose 10lbs in your first 8 weeks, we'll give you your money back"

This just doesn't work as a money back guarantee does it? Money back guarantees are supposed to work on the basis of "we're confident that this event is so unlikely, if it happens, we'll lose profit by giving you your money back".

I understand that ww can't say "if you don't lose 10lbs, we'll give you your money back", which would be the normal way to do it, as everyone would just carry on eating donuts! But switching it round doesn't work either. Just makes me think that you won't lose that much as they wouldn't want to lose all that money. Drives me nuts every time I see the advert.

Thank the Lord. Thought I was the only one going on about this. It's as though they are expecting you to fail. So odd

Me and DH had this exact conversation last night - me saying they'd got it the wrong way round, him saying yes but no one would lose weight just so they could get their money back. We didn't really get it.

I'm guessing that if you lose 10.01lbs you won't qualify for your money back.

I would assume they had it the wrong way round as well.

I would not buy a service from a company who would profit more if their service did not work, than if it did work.

Dating sites that give you extra months for free if you haven't found love, at least they are betting on success.

If you succeed, they do nothing.

If you do not succeed, they give you stuff for free.

So they should "prefer" if you succeed.

This is the opposite. Weightwatchers "prefer" for you to fail.

Meh sadly stupidity is endemic. They would of tested this add with the great unwashed.

Would a comma of sorted this out?**
**
Gah - would have not would of. You tapped into another pet hate there!!

And "a comma have" not "a comma of"!!

The confusion of "'ve" and "of" is a thread in itself!

I hate this ad for this reason too!

And yes, the perfect woman, who doesn't really need to lose weight, casually making healthy food from scratch with a flick of an ipad recipe whilst bouncing round the house to burn off extra calories is super annoying too.

A more realistic depiction would include her shouting at said iPad "WTF DO YOU MEAN I'VE RUN OUT OF POINTS? IT'S 11.30AM AND I'M STARVING"

it could be worse - we've got fecking Oprah selling us WW on the other side of the pond...

I don't think it's stupid, or bad business sense.

It's a short term profit loss for a long term gain. Someone who loses 10lbs in the 8 weeks (or whatever it was) is far more likely to become a long-term customer and informal peer advertiser for the company than someone who puts in a half-arsed attempt, loses only 2 or 3 pounds and then announces to all their friends that WW doesn't work and they're going back on the pies.

It's an investment in customer success it possibly what the David Brent tossers would call it.

It annoys me even more that the woman in the advert is a size 8-10 and clearly has little need to lose weight. Why not use some realistic models instead of the suggestion that someone who is clearly not overweight should be on a weight loss programme.

I made the mistake of watching adverts and saw this. Assumed that the ad writer has been following some insane eating plan and so can't think straight.

and Oprah, the poster girl for endless failed diets? Really?

Am a bit nervous to write this but I lost 12lbs in less than 8 weeks and got my money back no problem - I don't have loads of weight to lose - another 8lbs should do it ... I didn't know about the offer when I joined but was happy to take my money back anyway: I might be misunderstanding the point of the OP (if so apologies) :)