hair club for men

hair club for men, hair club, the hair club for men, the moment of truth, toupee, moment of truth

This morning I heard a crazy radio ad. It was narrated by the owner of an identity theft protection company. His gimmick was revealing his entire social security number on the air. Pretty ballsy, I thought, daring any cyber-thief to try to steal his personal data. And he backs up his service with a million dollar guarantee to boot.

It’s straight from the Hair-Club-For-Men school of marketing. You know…the guy who plugged his hair loss treatment company on TV by showing off his own company-installed hair plugs? “I’m not just the owner; I’m also a client,” he quipped. Other examples that come to mind are James Dyson, who invented a new fangled vacuum after being frustrated by vacs that sucked at sucking; and good old Victor Kiam, the former NE Patriots owner who liked Remington razors so much that he bought the company.

I have to admit that the identity theft guy’s ad caught my attention. I’ve been way too promiscuous online, recklessly handing over my personal information to any web service that caught my fancy. The only place my online identity hasn’t been is Heidi Fleiss’ little black book.

So that got me wondering: do ads like these work? Do companies in which the owners have skin in the game come across as credible, or is it just personalized snake oil? Do these ads compel you to buy? I want to know.

Moment of Truth

moment of truth, the moment of truth, moment of truth fox, lie detector show, to tell the truth, moment of truth tv show

When FOX first announced that it picked up new game show The Moment of Truth, I had my doubts about the show. It seemed too intrusive and risky. When reading Kristin's article about her time in one of the show's promo booths, I got confirmation that the show was mostly heading towards sensationalism. Even if I had my doubts about the show, I had to tune in at least once to see how crappy and creepy the show would turn out to be and how low contestants would agree to go in order to win money.

If I understood correctly, the contestants are asked questions before the show and at that time they have all the polygraph gear on them. Once they answered the questions, the show compiles the official answers taking into account the moments when the contestants lied. Then, they go on the show and are asked the 21 questions out of those they were asked and their answers is compared to the polygraph results (for example, if someone said "yes" on the show and on the polygraph test they said "yes" but it was discovered that they were lying, then the official answer is "no" meaning that on the show they have an incorrect answer... follow me?). The more questions they answered truthfully, the more money they can get. But with more money means the possibility of alienating friends and family members because some of the questions are really touchy ("Is there something you have done that could cause [your wife] not to trust you? Do you have a bank account your girlfriend doesn't know about?") and the answer could put the contestant in a rough spot. I guess some contestants will lie both in the test and on the show in the hope that they beat the test and, therefore, can get away with a lie. But unless you are Sydney Bristow, chances are that you won't be able to beat the polygraph!

As all game shows nowadays, there is suspenseful music and a pause before the result is announced. About the latter, I'm glad the wait for the results wasn't too long; that helped give a good pace to the show. Mark L. Walberg did a better hosting job than I expected him to. He interacted with the players, had interesting questions to ask the contestants that were tie ins to the real game questions. He is not the greatest host on TV but he did a fair job.

It was interesting to see the instant reactions from family members and friends. They were always on the edge of their seat and not always happy with the answers, but what were they expecting? The ex-football player's wife kept saying that she "wanted to know" but her facial expressions were not always in agreement. I'm pretty sure it was painful for her but she was supportive of the fact that her husband wanted to continue. If someone decided to go on the show, they agreed to be asked tough questions that could put their relationships and friendships in jeopardy. And if a friend or family member agreed to come to the show to support the contestant, they agreed to hear things they may have wished remained secret. My curiosity would like to know what happened after the show. Did the family members and friends confront the contestant? Were they supportive and agreed to not ask questions because they too have secrets?

Random fact about the show: did you know that The Moment of Truth is being produced in 24 countries? Oh and the show, titled Nothing but the Truth at first, was picked up in August of 2007, meaning that it wasn't part of FOX's plan to cope with the writers' strike. Strike or no strike, the show would have made it on the air.

In all, The Moment of Truth was not as bad as I expected. It is as intrusive and risky as I thought it would be though and me (and others) watching more episodes will have FOX think we want to see more of the show and other shows that are alike. Thing is, I'm not sure we do but what else is on TV? Plus, let's admit it, we love hearing secrets! I don't know yet if I'll tune in next week but if I do, I blame it on the strike and my curiosity!