I didn’t quite know what to call this article. It was supposed to be about advertising at first, because my brain loves playing with the wording and contradictions of advertising. Advertising seems to make the assumption that those it is aimed at are stupid and that aggravates me. However, as usual with my collection of thoughts, it really didn’t fit that categorization. So this is ending up truly being about random thoughts I had regarding images seen in our regular veterinary magazines. I’m not sure if they’re even funny. But bear with me. As you always do.
This first one is from an article I’ve had in my file (I was going to say drawer, but then it sounded as if I had them down my pants) for the longest time because it’s one of those titles that you just want to memorize and rattle off in an authoritative fashion at some conference or evening get-together, where people will “ooooooo….” and “aaaahhhh….”.
The first time you read it the words are so slippery that your brain can’t hold on to them. When I finally broke it down, all I could think was there had to be some way they could have simplified the article title. The people who did this study are just showing off. And I guess that’s why it struck me. Because it seems like on one end of the spectrum we are told to simplify our instructions and explanations to owners and on the other end be able to read and engage on a wholly different level. And maintain our sanity.This next image has been a magnet on our clinic’s refrigerator for a number of years.
91% of pet owners expect a nutrition recommendation, it says. And my brain always adds, “Right. And 85% of them won’t take your recommendations. And 20% of that 85% will argue vehemently with you.”
This next image I just want you to ponder for a moment. I want you to ask yourself what article was this image used for. Here’s the thing. You won’t be able to figure it out without me telling you. Don’t skip ahead. See if you know the answer before I give it.
The answer is: this image was used for an article about rabies vaccination. Really. I’m not actually kidding in this one specific instance. I don’t know about you but that doesn’t look like a rabies vaccine, the color or the ungodly amount. That looks like euthanasia solution, which then makes you wonder why they’re giving it sub-Q, but does explain the happy, yet completely unaware, look on the dog’s face. Imagine his surprise: “What the?! I was told this was a rabies shot!”
I know many of you will recognize this familiar magazine:
But does anyone else out there think that we should be given options in our reading selection? I do. Case in point:
This next magazine cover I am not using to make fun of anyone on the cover. After all, they were just asked to pose for a photograph. I am using it to illustrate that magazines make strange choices in framing pictures or conveying a narrative. They have an idea in their head and they don't consider other ways images might be taken. Here’s the original cover:
And here’s the dog’s thought bubble to demonstrate what I found so strikingly odd about the cover, especially since it specifically cites "recurrent" tumors:
This next thought I have no image for, but I have to ask you, faithful readers, does anyone else find it a bit odd and sketchy that in certain magazines there will be “education series” articles that are underwritten by companies that sell the laser surgery equipment or provide stem cell services that the “article” is about? It reminds me of how amused I get when a steady stream of flea prevention reps (doing their jobs and doing it well I must be quick to say) come into the office with fancy diagrams from the same Power Point program showing how much better their product is than the competitors. The only thing you come away with is it doesn’t really matter which product you pick, because they’re all THE BEST!
And finally, I have to share my hands-down favorite magazine cover. If you’ve ever been to one of my talks, you know which one it is already. For the rest of you, here ya go:
So. Testing for positional nystagmus? Or Pug abuse? You decide. I’m just glad that I’m not the vet who’s face is on this cover. I would not have allowed that image to be published. Again, we’re supposed to assume the right things about the image, because it’s a professional magazine and, of course, what else could they be showing? However, I think it’s perfectly fair to interpret that image as maybe the Pug owed the vet some money and he was late in paying. Maybe it’s just me.