#72 point

Beauty and the beast? Most men consider their other half to be the most attractive

MOST men think their other half is better looking than they are, it emerged yesterday.

And they prefer it that way because it boosts their self-esteem.

Sixty per cent of men questioned in a survey said their wife or girlfriend was more attractive than them.

But only 25 per cent of women thought their partner was better looking.

Source: Express, 30th November 2013

We have something of a mixed bag of genderism to unpack in this story from the Express: firstly, the implication that men are less attractive than women, which comes with a whole host of problematic attendant assumptions around the value of looks in one gender or another, and the related value of that particular gender. It's flattering and helpful to neither men nor women.

Plus, we have the equally insidious suggestion that having an attractive woman on one's arm is a boost to the self-esteem of men. Clearly this sets up all manner of implications, from the reduction of women to a mere accessory to male ego, all the way to the definition of masculinity being reflected and represented by the attractiveness of partner a man can attract.

In a few short sentences, we've some pretty ugly assumptions and unhelpfully genderist messages sent - and to what purpose?

But how do ugly men end up with a beautiful girl who might usually be out of their league?

Well, being funny, a good listener and having nice manners are the key attributes, according to the survey by lookalikes site Celebalike.com.

A nation of budding foodies: Today's children have more adventurous tastes than their parents did

Smoked salmon, goat's cheese, garlic and salami might have seemed like exotic fare to previous generations but for today's children they are nothing out of the ordinary.

A new survey has found that parents are encouraging their children to try more adventurous foods and more than half of all parents say that their children boast a far more sophisticated palate than they had at the same age.

Source: Daily Mail, 14th October 2013

Gone is the myth that children are too picky to eat anything a little unusual, then - the modern child can chew through all manner of grown-up food. Which is handy, given the company that employed Bad PR regulars OnePoll to come up with this finding:

What would you say were the most essential skills in our modern world? Ability to tell when a Nigerian Prince is pulling your leg? Understanding of exactly what a PPI claim is and isn’t? Aptitude at determining adverts from news articles? Nope! 

Forget darning, baking and fixing the car - the skills you REALLY need in the 21st century are setting the satnav and putting your rubbish in the right bin

Connecting to WiFi, knowing how to use Google and tuning HD TVs were listed today as some of the most useful skills of modern life.

In a survey which polled 2,000 adults, using a self-service checkout,online banking and operating satnav replaced talents such as knitting and baking to be named the most ‘essential’ capabilities in British culture.

Only 10 of the 50 most important skills didn’t involve modern technology, with cooking and using a calculator among them, while participants counted sewing and letter writing as skills that are no longer needed.

Source: Daily Mail, 7th September 2013

Oh darn it, now WiFi is listed as an ‘essential’

USING WiFi and self-service supermarket checkouts are among modern life’s essential skills, a poll shows.

Searching the internet, mastering online banking and being able to touch-type are also in the top 50.

But darning, knitting and being able to bake fresh bread are said to be no longer necessary for everyday life.

Source: Daily Express, 7th September 2013

Whichever way you look at it, as long as you only look at it the way these news stories present it, having technical skills is much more important than the kind of skills that were useful when Granny was just a young girl. Which is a handy hook, given the company behind the ‘research’:

A spokesman for touch-typing course www.kaz-type.com, who carried out the poll said: ‘For generations, there are skills which have been passed down from parent to child, because they were deemed so essential to everyday life.

'However, it seems technology is wiping out some of those skills as gadgets can now do it for us.

'The internet has become such a huge part of life that it’s so important to know how to use it, while built-in address books on mobile phones mean we no longer have to memorise the phone numbers of loved ones.

'If anything, touch-typing is only becoming more important over time as so many careers now rely on computers more than ever for their day-to-day work.'

While it seems that touch-typing can be learnt via an online course, it appears that subtlety can’t. 

Still, what about that ‘research’, which proved that once-cherished skills are now worthless? Where did that come from? I’m positive regular readers won’t be at all surprised to discover that the ‘research’ - which also featured in the print editions of the Mail, Express and Telegraph - stemmed from a survey conducted by Bad PR regulars OnePoll. 

Press release in hand, a quick check over at Churnalism.com shows that Daily Mail journalist Jennifer Smith took a whopping 86% of the original press release into her article.

In a world where men and women are increasingly considered equals, it's great to see the Daily Mail finding time for some gold old-fashioned throwback sexism:

Young women admit they care more about their looks than their career prospects

British women aged 18-25 care more about 'looking good' than climbing the career ladder, according to a new survey.

The study, which asked single women to rank aspects of their life, found 41 per cent were more concerned about their appearance than how well their job was going.

One in five admitted prospects, promotions and pay rises meant less to them than having 'perfect hair', fashionable clothes and good make up.

As many as one in four admitted they would rather look like Frankie Sandford from The Saturdays than be as successful as businesswoman Karren Brady.

Source: Daily Mail, 5 March 2013

Alas, despite the many strides of feminism, it seems the modern-day woman cares not a jot about her career, and instead her pretty-little girlbrain can only concern itself with the superficial and cosmetic, with appearances and nice hair topping the list of things the lady of today cares most about.

Things get worse, as even fiscal security falls second to the insatiably materialistic female worldview:

The study also showed many women prioritise 'great hair' and 'staying thin' over renting or owning their own place and learning to drive.

The top priority for the 539 women questioned was going out with friends.

I think it's frankly disgusting that all of the women of today care only about whether their hair looks nice before they go out with their friends. Unfortunately, it seems I'm alone in my view:

A spokeswoman for haircare company John Frieda, which conducted the study, said it 'stands to reason' that young women today are more concerned with their looks and friendships in an era when social networking means more pictures are shared online and rising house prices have made buying a first home impossible.

The John Frieda spokeswoman added: 'It is incredible girls would rather have beautiful coloured hair and the High Street's latest outfits than a pension in place, their own car, or their own house.

'But this is because when you are in your early twenties appearance is of huge importance - and before life gets too serious and stressful, why should it be any other way.'

That's right - it's OK if your aspirations only stretch as far as looking good and having nice hair, ladies, because a haircare company (who can make your hair look nice) says so... albeit the same haircare company who created a survey designed to demonstrate that haircare is more important than all of the actual things in life that women actually care about. 

Have you ever noticed how annoying your neighbour is? Gone are the days of borrowed sugar and shared barbecues - neighbours these days are not to be trusted, and ought to be viewed with a mix of cynicism, derision and fear. Don't just take my word for it (not least because I don't actually mean any of this), the Daily Mail agrees:

Neighbours? We can't stand them: Rows over noisy kids, bins and loud music found to kill community spirit.

One in three Brits don't get on with their neighbours, a study revealed yesterday.

New research into the state of the nation's community spirit found millions of us have an uneasy truce with those who live nearest.

In fact, as many as one in four homeowners admit they have a full-blown argument with the people next door.

Source: Daily Mail, 7 February 2013 (and paper edition)

The sense of community is an old-fashioned and outmoded idea, then, apparently. Gone are the days when you could rely on your neighbour, when you could leave your doors unlocked and know there'd be no problem, and when you could ask your neighbour to put your flat cap through their mangle without them charging you tuppence ha'penny for the privelege. A lost era.

Or perhaps that's only what those behind the study want you to think... 

The figures emerged in a study of 2,000 people by Yale

That would be the lock manufacturers, Yale, makes of the Yale lock, explaining via a survey run via 72 Point's OnePoll service how you shouldn't trust those who live nearest your house:

Additionally, the average person has two people who live nearby that they struggle to trust, results showed.

The Yale spokesman added: Despite many of us having content relationships with our neighbours, there are occasions when neighbours don't get along and sometimes they might not feel it would be any of their business to report suspicious behaviour.

Feeling happy in your home should also be a top priority, so taking action towards keeping your property secure should be simple and greatly add to that peace of mind

It's February 14th, and in accordance with tradition the nation will be heaving tonight with the sounds of relationships the country over being consumated. Specifically, the relationships between PR agencies and their satisfied clients, as retailers and businesses cash in on the Valentine's Day media free-for-all.

While the exploitation of the most commercial of the Hallmark Holidays is nothing new, 2013 certainly hasn't let the side down - the first rains of the Valentine's PR monsoon falling as early as January, with pioneering research into the evolution of the pet name (Daily Mail, January 28th) published in the Daily Mail:

Move over darling! Old-fashioned favourite beaten into third place as babe and baby become Britain's top terms of endearment

The research found that terms of affection such as 'darling' and 'sweetheart' have been superseded by more modern and streamline pet-names like 'baby' and 'love' (both of which were actually only invented in the year 2000 as part of Britain's preparations for the Millennium Bug). These findings have far-reaching implications, according to the researchers – who coincidentally are a sex toy retailer named after two common pet names:

Lovehoney co-founder Neal Slateford said: 'The ways pet names have changed over the years show we are getting even more affectionate towards each other and a little less formal.

'As a nation, we are learning to lighten up when it comes to love and sex. That has to be a good thing.'

If I were an online sex toy retailer, I'm sure I'd find ample reason to agree. Still, that the survey produced media-friendly results of potential benefit to the company carrying out the research should in no way undermine the credibility of this online, self-reported and entirely-subjective poll, even as further findings from this PR exercise are explained:

And while the British might have a reputation for being unromantic, the poll found that the opposite is true, with 72 per cent saying that Valentine's Day is a great excuse to show a partner how much they appreciate them.

If anybody is still unsure how to show a partner how much they're appreciated, a Mr Slateford at Lovehoney.co.uk has a number of expensive suggestions for you. Or perhaps you could always turn to vibrator vendors 'Desire and Pleasure', whose own online self-promotional pseudo-research was featured in The Sun (The Sun, February 7th):

CASH-strapped Brits are shunning expensive romantic nights out this Valentine’s Day — and stocking up on SEX TOYS instead, a survey claims.

The unromantic reputation of Britons was similarly noted by British tourist board 'Visit Britain', who pointed out (Daily Mail, February 10th):

Britain 'too stuffy' to host romantic visit as Italy and France is preferred by tourists

While we may be too stuffy to be romantic, we're not too stupid to recognise reverse psychology. The lack of romance in modern-day Britain is clearly an area fraught with controversy, with a study published by Interflora insisting that Britons are a nation of romantics who fall in love at first sight (Daily Mail, February 6th), with one in five Brits positive the best way to declare new-found love is with a nice bunch of flowers. If only they could find a suitable florist.

While there's clearly some rigorous academic dispute over the romance levels of the average Brit, at least one thing is certain – somewhere in Britain can be arbitrarily declared as more romantic than everywhere else. After all, in any closed set with random variance, there has to be an upper and lower limit – and what better way to highlight normal statistical distribution than by letting people know you sell perfume (Daily Mail, February 1st)?

When it comes to Valentine's gifts, we've an abundance of research – each piece diligently compiled by online survey companies using questions written very carefully by PR companies on behalf of businesses aiming to use Valentine's Day to secure column inches. Voucher website Groupon, for example, revealed flowers and chocolates just don't cut it (The Sun, February 12th), and instead a gifts need to be memorable – rather like one of the experiences you can buy inexpensively on voucher websites like Groupon. And heaven help you if you get last-minute flowers from a petrol station - voucher website NetVoucherCodes.co.uk have research proving such an idea is a no-no (Daily Mail, February 11th).

On the other hand, as retailer Debenham's helpfully researched, it'd be a good idea to buy the lady in your life some 'posh knickers' (Daily Mail, February 6th). Or perhaps you should take part in the British Heart Foundation's charity initiative to write your partner a love note – after all, the BHF's own research proves women prefer a simple, thoughtful gesture to an expensive gift anyway (Daily Mail, February 12th). But remember to buy your mistress something nice, too (Daily Mail, February 12th) – an extramarital dating website has research which says this is wise.

For those in long-term relationships, Valentine's Day isn't necessarily all department-store knickers and online vouchers – there are innumerable pitfalls into which the unsuspecting lover could fall. Fortunately, there's a wealth of PR-led research with commercially-valuable conclusions to guide an impressionable couple – with advice from MSN to avoid relationship-killing public display of affection (Daily Mail, February 12th) and data produced by internet security experts McAfee (Daily Mail, February 5th) proving that not only are your exes cyber-stalking you, but that those explicit photos on your smartphone are vulnerable to being hacked unless you can find an expert willing to sell you internet security. Even married couples aren't safe from the relationship curse, with research proving that excitement, romance, sex and affection are dead in the water after three and a half years of marriage (The Telegraph, February 9th) – that the data was gathered by Co-op Foods probably has nothing at all to do with their Valentine's Meal Deal and associated ad campaign.

Of course, if all else fails, you could always opt for the free Valentine's Day Divorce (Daily Mail, February 12th). After all, there's only 365 days left until Valentine's Day – and there's a hell of a lot of spurious, commercially-driven and scientifically-worthless online surveys to fill in before then.

Have you been hitting the gym? And are you finding it a little hard to keep up momentum? Fear not, for the Daily Mail has the official reason why you might be struggling:

Looking for a fitness boost? Workout with a friend - research shows that women train harder with an exercise partner

Working out with friends is better than exercising alone, researchers say.

A study of 1,000 women found that 64 per cent of those who run, go to the gym or attend group exercise classes with chums will push themselves harder than if they went alone.

Those who exercise together train for longer, burn more calories and go to the gym more often.

The study shows 31 per cent of women consider their friends to be the motivation they need to stay in good shape.

Source: Daily Mail, 16 January 2013

So, the 'official' answer to your gym blues is to always convince a friend to go along with you so the two of you can work out tomorrow. That the side effect of such advice is twice as many people hitting the gym almost certainly never crossed the mind of the survey's originator - gym chain Virgin Active:

A spokesman for Virgin Active Health Clubs, which carried out the research, said: 'We all have a need to socialise and be with other people, it’s written into our DNA.

'Sometimes having an exercise partner is the difference between sitting on the couch in the evening and getting up and out of the house.

'You are less likely to let a friend down and it is more fun.

Could this be as outright cynical as a gym chain telling people to come in pairs, simply to boost their membership? Well, given that the poll was carried out by 72 Point's OnePoll, almost certainly, yes.

And, for good measure, it's worth pointing out that the press release was taken into the Daily Mail at a churn rate of 80%.

When it comes to pointing out nonsense PR, I feel I'm on safe and steady ground when pointing out how this company or that commercial enterprise is pushing a specific narrative opaquely through the press in order to make money. That always feels neat and tidy. However, things get a bit more morally-ambiguous when there's a legitimate and well-meaning charity involved. Take:

Men want miniskirts and low cut tops banned from the office for being 'too distracting' (and women agree too!)

Men want hotpants, miniskirts and low cut tops banned from the office because they are too distracting, new research shows.

A study found that at least a third of men want women stopped from wearing revealing outfits at work, with skimpy shorts the first to go.

Hotpants were named by 32 per cent as unacceptable, with 30 per cent adding that anything with a leopard print should be banned.

Source: Daily Mail, 14 January 2013

Pretty standard PR fodder, I'm sure you'll agree - complete with the opportunity for eye-catching photographs of women in revealing outfits in the office, and a good-old-fashioned slut-shaming in the comments. 

However, the originator of this piece of research isn't Superdrug, or Debenhams, or a dodgy dating website - all of which I'd feel are unquestionably valid targets for criticism when using this approach to grab headlines. Instead, the story was placed by the British Heart Foundation, who are promoting an initiative to get people to wear red to the office in order to spread awareness of heart disease:

Polly Shute, Fundraising Project Director at the BHF, added: 'It seems the fail-safe weapon at work for 2013 is the colour red.

'Whether it's a dash of red lipstick, wearing that desirable Little Red Dress, or donning a red tie, organising a Rock Up In Red event is a great excuse to dress to impress with colleagues.

'Not only will you have the perfect opportunity to wear a colour seldom seen in the workplace, you will also help the BHF beat the UK's single biggest killer.'

This, I feel, is a worthwhile goal - heart disease is a real killer, and so making people aware of the issue and encouraging the population to support the BHF feels a good idea. Yet, it's hard to see the methods the BHF have employed as being anything other than damaging and ill-thought-out, giving a needlessly negative and judgemental view of women's role in the office. Are there no better ways to remind people of heart disease, than to call out women for being a distraction to the men of the office, who we have to assume are little more than libido-machines incapable of being professional in the presence of exposed skin? 

The article manages to be offensive both to women and men - which already puts the BHF on the back foot with those in the population who identify as either male or female. Which, at last count, is quite a high percentage...

What's more, this isn't an isolated case, with a similarly poorly-judged article back in August 2011 springing to mind:

End of romance: One in five married couples kiss just once in a week (and then it's just for five seconds)

One in five married couples don't kiss for an entire week, and when they do, it lasts no more than five seconds, a survey has found.

Younger lovebirds make more time for romance, with those aged between 18 and 24 saying they lock lips with a partner 11 times a week on average.

The survey found that only five per cent of over 45s manage more than 30 kisses a week.

Source: Daily Mail, 3 August 2011

At the time, the article was promoting the BHF's 'Kiss of life' campaign, teaching children how to do CPR. Nobody in the world would disagree with the goals of teaching children how to save lives, but it's bafflingly counter-productive of the BHF to promote this campaign by informing married people couples that the spark and romance of their relationship is dead. Who benefits from such a negative angle?

That the 2011 poll (and possibly this latest poll) were products of 72 Point's prolific manure-spreading polling company OnePoll merely magnifies the concern - I took part in the kissing survey in 2011, and found the methodology painfully and irreparably flawed. One question asked users to choose from a list of options the duration of their last kiss - self-reported answers to a question nobody is like to be able to answer accurately, yet this became one of the key findings of the article.