Talk:HeadOn

Archives (Index)

2012 2015 2016

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

When introduced?

The info box says the product was introduced in 2006, but then the article goes on to explain variants of the product that were sold in 2000. Which is it? 2607:FEA8:C860:4205:45FD:5F3B:9003:AD5E (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:HeadOn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 06:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

A bunch of copy changes. Fun to read about this legitimately flash-in-the-pan advertising meme again. Felt like they sponsored every closed captioning announcement on CNN back during this time.

Copy changes

• A previous version of the commercial claimed the product provided headache relief, but was pulled after objections from the Better Business Bureau. Remove comma; second half has no subject of its own. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences (CinS)
• No clinical trial has ever found evidence for the product's efficacy and medical experts have widely described it as a placebo Add comma after "efficacy" (CinS)
• Hyphenate "late-night"
• Change to "reruns of Seinfeld" as the show was no longer on network TV by 2006, so it would not have been new.
• Both The Today Show and Ad Age described the commercial as "obnoxious" and multiple reviewers joked that the commercial gave viewers headaches. Comma after "obnoxious" (CinS)
• The 2008 spoof film Disaster Movie included a parody of the commercial and other parodies were shared on the online video-sharing platform YouTube Add comma after "commercial" (CinS)
• Hyphenate "year-on-year". Also, 2005 to 2007 YOY doesn't make sense and isn't justified by the source.

Spot checks

• 7: Cannot access. Doing...
  • 8: The ads may have earned HeadOn some notice, and our worst-commercial dishonor for 2006, but I can't abide the thought that those obnoxious ads are making the company rich. Y
• 9: Accessed on EBSCOhost. Y
  • Labeled obnoxious: They're annoying, repetitive, obnoxious-and effective.
  • Parodies on Leno, SNL, and the Daily Show.
  • Sales: HeadOn is logging some heady growth rates-234% from 2005 to 2006. And for the first half of 2007, the brand looks to be on track to double sales. No proof of 2007 YOY, though "on track"...
  • Yet the campy spots...
  • Miralus' ActivOn, for joint pain, launched in 2006, has leapfrogged past HeadOn...
• 12: Cardozo Law Review. Checks out Y
  • Footnote: Despite this impressive growth rate, it is unclear whether Miralus ever turned a profit. The company was still not profitable in late 2007.
  • pages 1278–1280 discuss ...The role of familiarity in building positive affective responses (i.e., “liking”) and structuring choice tasks is well-documented not only in consumer psychology literature, but in cognitive psychology studies as well.110 Importantly, these effects of familiarity and liking can be cultivated by mere repetition of a brand name
  • glue-stick-like applicator
  • purchased by consumers at prices between five and eight dollars per unit
  • Medical experts argued consistently and repeatedly on the broadcast networks and in major daily newspapers that any perceived headache relief delivered by HeadOn was due to the placebo effect
  • Miralus intended to sell HeadOn as a topical headache remedy, but the product contained only trace amounts of its claimed effective ingredients
• 14: WaPo article.
  • Dan Charron, vice president of sales and marketing for Miralus, said the company used data from the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States -- a standard reference for homeopathic practitioners -- to create the product
  • HeadOn, he said, contains highly dilute amounts of white bryony (a type of vine) and potassium dichromate -- said by the Pharmacopoeia to cause headaches. Mainstream doctors don't believe these substances cause or cure headaches

Earwig only catches a quote and the ad script plus one or two banal phrases.

Media

The logo is below TOO (mostly colored text and shadow on background). The fair-use video has valid NFUR and is discussed amply enough in the article.

Response

@Sammi Brie: I've addressed all of your concerns except for the applicability of year-on-year, which I'm not sure I understand. Is it because the source doesn't have the full data for years 2006–07? :3 F4U (they/it) 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U In part, because I don't think that quite verifies the statement. But year-over-year can't be stated as a two-year gap like it is now: doubling sales year-on-year between 2005 to 2007. Maybe doubling sales year-on-year from 2005 to 2006. That would make sense. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: I've addressed that point, but now I have another concern:

When writing the article I came across a site mentioning that a law firm was intending to sue Miralus Healthcare—however because of the total lack of secondary reporting on the suit, I didn't include it in the article.

However, apparently this dead link [1] (one archive on IA, but it's also dead) reported on it. In addition, there's this tiny blurb from Courthouse News service [2], and it's mentioned in passing here [3]. I believe these are the relevant court documents against Walmart and against Walgreens/RiteAid for selling the product.

Is my judgement correct that this still shouldn't be mentioned in the article for the lack of secondary sources on this? :3 F4U (they/it) 19:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you made the right call. Amazingly coverage of Miralus just drops like a rock after this...to zero. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hahahaha yeah! The only reason this fits under lasting notability is because of the damn commercial, which still gets cited today as a terrible yet effective marketing campaign. If that's all the comments, then I think I've addressed everything now. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the commercial for HeadOn drew comparisons to Maoist posters, North Korean propaganda, and Hillary Clinton? Source: (1) A woman of rather conservative appearance stares into the abyss like a military commander on a Maoist poster as she rubs what appears to be a glue-stick on her forehead. [4]; (2) The ad is simplicity itself, if simplicity reminds you of North Korean propaganda. [5]; (3) Herein lies the genius of HeadOn, a product that promises nothing, builds no expectations, disappoints no one. It's the Hillary Clinton of over-the-counter meds. [6]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Milt Grant Show

Improved to Good Article status by Freedom4U (talk). Self-nominated at 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/HeadOn; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I found the hook very interesting, and the article passes Earwig. CJ-Moki (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)