Chew on this "experiment."

In November 2013, Beldent gum's digital marketing team produced a video that went viral and has experienced a resurgence this week. "Almost identical," features pairs of identical twins in a museum dressed exactly the same - except one difference: one is chewing a piece of gum. 481 people participated in the experiment - with over 73% choosing the gum chewer in a series of questions aimed to debunk the apparent "myth" that chewing gum makes you look bad. In fact, Saatchi & Saatchi boldly claim that this "social experiment" proves that "chewing gum doesn't give a bad impression. In fact, it does the opposite."(source: Saatchi & Saatchi)

The piece is engaging and funny - full of the expected and emotional "oohs and ahhs" essential to a successful viral video. However, the use of such experiments do not prove anything. Viewers have criticized the video, reasoning that the other twin was not smiling - giving stern, serious looks - which elicit negative responses. Attire was also key to framing questions about the subjects' social lives and workplace power. While accuracy is clearly not the goal of such an ad, it blurs the distinction between advertising and reality, which leads to dangerous and misguided perceptions of our world. (If you chew gum at your next interview, I really hope it wasn't because you watched this video - and best of luck to you (sarcasm intended)!)

While I don't advocate for any kind of ban on advertiser's creative license to push their products, this does ruffle my feathers a bit. Young people are increasingly (and unwittingly) bombarded with so many advertisements: it seems problematic that ads like this blur the reality of a truly scientific study with one clearly geared to pushing you to chew more gum. One hopes media literacy classes become equally as important in high schools and stay on the forefront of people's minds.

In the real world of authoritative studies, companies like Beldent would not be allowed to sponsor experiments in which they would directly gain: this would be a conflict of interest. It is a variable that must be controlled for in scientific experiments. In the world of digital marketing, it appears that advertisers are pushing this envelope beyond any limits. Rather than a drug company disclaimer required of pharmaceuticals, companies such as Beldent can just slap their logos onto the end of a video without explanation. And by staging it as "art" in a museum - it becomes more palatable, while its claims less legally contentious.

It's a difficult dilemma: while twisting perceptions is key to successful advertising - is there a limit? Where should advertising regulation start or stop? Or is media literacy the sole responsibility of an individual regardless of age? These questions are critical as digital advertising moves more seamlessly into our lives.