Is it wrong to use the phrase "up to" and then not just state the max?

February 7, 2019 12:58 PM

So there is a commercial airing that says people who take the pill can lose "up to an average of 12 pounds." I also hear possible savings described as "up to 5-10 percent" quite often. If I said "up to" I would only state the maximum possible and not a range or an average. Are these just sloppy sentences or is there something I am missing?
posted by soelo to Writing & Language (19 answers total)

Why not hedge your bets? "You can lose up to 5-10" makes everyone think "10" without committing to anything while still giving you the "5" to point at and say that you're delivering exactly what you promised.
posted by East14thTaco at 1:04 PM on February 7, 2019

They are hedging your bets. If those who take the pill can lose up to an average of 12 pounds, that may mean that a few lose 40 lbs and most lose 5. But they don't want to say "up to 40" because that's setting expectations way too high, and they don't want to say "around 5" because that's boring. So they say "up to x", where x is calculated to be the sweet spot between credibility and likelihood, and know that, because they hedged with "up to," no one can sue. The "up to [savings range]" works exactly the same way.
posted by ubiquity at 1:04 PM on February 7, 2019 [10 favorites]

And by the way, average is a vague term. Are they referring to the mean or the median, or some other weighted sum? No one knows, which makes it even harder to tie them down.
posted by ubiquity at 1:07 PM on February 7, 2019 [2 favorites]

I think it is being used to distort information. But theoretically, many studies could have been performed and the one that showed the maximum weight loss showed a loss of an average of 12 lbs.
posted by i_am_a_fiesta at 1:07 PM on February 7, 2019 [2 favorites]

because they hedged with "up to," no one can sue

Au contraire!
posted by praemunire at 1:09 PM on February 7, 2019 [1 favorite]

Best answer: But, yes, OP, you are definitely picking up on deliberately confusing language.
posted by praemunire at 1:10 PM on February 7, 2019 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: "Up to 10" is exactly the same as "Up to 5-10", when making a claim, is it not? "Up to" means anywhere from 0 to the amount you state.
posted by soelo at 1:11 PM on February 7, 2019 [2 favorites]

That is correct.

And that Charter suit alleged that you COULDN'T get the alleged speeds they advertised even hypothetically.
posted by East14thTaco at 1:15 PM on February 7, 2019

Nope. The claim was that "up to" was deceptive in that the "up to" speed was a maximum "rarely" attained rather than representative. (p. 16-18)
posted by praemunire at 1:25 PM on February 7, 2019 [1 favorite]

Yes, that is a bullshit statistic. Everything about the weight loss industry is pure bullshit from the word go though, so I assume the marketers were just high on their own farts and don't know what reality is anymore. It's so much deliberately misleading nonsense that it's not even worth trying to pick apart because the whole thing is just lies piled upon lies with nothing but a big pile of money at the bottom.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 1:41 PM on February 7, 2019 [2 favorites]

Wasn’t there some company that always said “you could save up to 15% or more” with their product? So, literally any number. Great slogan.
posted by Sterros at 1:48 PM on February 7, 2019 [5 favorites]

"people who take the pill can lose "up to an average of 12 pounds."

I usually read this as most lost none, maybe half a pound because they were choosing to eat better, and one huge dude inadvertently went low carb and lost a tonne of water weight in that particular week (but probably regained it the next) and so woohoo, they can claim to have data.

Totally bullshit and misleading way of writing it.
posted by kitten magic at 2:03 PM on February 7, 2019

It's very sloppy but it wouldn't surprise me if the actual writers didn't really understand concepts like average very well. The ambiguity is deliberate, but it may not be intentionally misleading.
posted by plonkee at 2:26 PM on February 7, 2019

I have exactly no evidence for this, but I've always assumed that these phrasings were lawyerly and pedantically pointing at some study they'd sponsored or run and were using the same language as the study.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:33 PM on February 7, 2019

They’re not sloppy sentences. They are very specifically and intentionally written that way, with attention paid to what a product or company can legally claim without straying into the territory of false information. Even phrases like “up to” are examined in regard to their legal validity.

It might read sloppily to a consumer, but to a marketer, I assure you every word is curated.
posted by Autumnheart at 4:55 PM on February 7, 2019 [3 favorites]

Agreeing that they're not sloppy -- they're marketing materials designed to increase sales, not scientific backed-by-studies facts. Even if 10 is attainable, you need to look at the language of the number -- is that for a certain period of time? Or people doing LoseWeight product with another factor involved? Is it only people who started using LoseWeight product after failing to lose weight on another product? If there's a "more" involved, are they comparing it to other similar but equal products, or to something like "compared to doing nothing" or 'compared to our own lesser product'?

Like the car insurance company statements that say "by switching to CarInsurance people saved an average of $750". That doesn't mean that you're going to save $750, or even $100, it means that people who switched saved, so the data is about customer decision making, not the quality of insurance price: it's saying a lot of people go, "Eh, if I'm only saving $400 I'll stay with OldCarInsurance", and possibly even "Our insurance company deliberately prices things so lower-quality customers won't switch, and this is the number market testing arrived at".

So, if you're attracted to a number in marketing materials, definitely try and find the small print that explains how they arrived at that number -- it may be valid, or it might be a metric that doesn't apply to you.
posted by AzraelBrown at 4:40 AM on February 8, 2019

Best answer: Pretty sure the OP is questioning the redundancy of using 'up to' and a range, when 'up to' in itself implies a range. The OP isn't questioning the use of 'up to' alone as an advertising tactic.

But just throwing my hat in the ring, I think it's just sloppy sentences.
posted by greta simone at 7:59 AM on February 8, 2019

Response by poster: greta is right - the redundancy is what bothers me, not the obvious marketing speak. The pill isn't a weight loss drug, but weight loss can be a side effect.
posted by soelo at 2:46 PM on February 8, 2019

The fact that weight loss is a side effect (presumably a desirable one?) explains why the sentence seems sloppy. Pharma is not allowed to make any claims that are not FDA approved. I bet they want this drug to be used off label for its impact on weight -- or at least chosen over its competitors -- but legally they can't promote it for that, hence the vague wording.
posted by basalganglia at 3:07 PM on February 8, 2019