The usual way these types of products have been advertised is has previously been infomercials, where a person is shown struggling with store-bought products in a way that looks ridiculous enough that multiple comedians have done stand-up bits about it to the effect of: "who is it that has these problems?"
The answer: people with disabilities.
But by advertising in this way, infomercials appealed both to those with disabilities (who recognized the implied relevance to their condition) and those who benefited from the curb-cut effect[1]. They were able to sell more units for a lower price and also avoid making explicit medical claims.
This kickstarter, possibly following from the popularity of fidget toys, decided to be more explicit.
---
[1] The Curb Cut effect is a generally useful observation in UX design you can read about in a few places. Here is one: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_curb_cut_effect
OXO-brand kitchen tools for arthritis are another example of it.
I had a phase of clinical depression, a long time ago now, but I started sleeping in the 14 inch gap between the bed and the wall, to feel squeezed. I did that for months. Who cares what somebody else's science says about it? I liked it and I did it. Does an extra heavy blanket sound nice to you? Then get one. Or don't.
Look, there's no need to have vague arguments about how we would describe their claims. Here is the wording they removed:
"The science behind Gravity reveals that it can be used to treat a variety of ailments, including insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, as well as circumstantial stress and prolonged anxiety."
Assuming that "can be used to treat" means what I think it does, this is simply false: the science doesn't show that. And regardless, claims of this form are specifically forbidden by Kickstarter, which prohibits "any item claiming to cure, treat, or prevent an illness or condition". So they removed this claim, like they should have.
None of this contradicts the fact that you might want to buy one of these blankets if you have insomnia, etc.
This is a lot of sturm-und-drang over nothing. These arguments aren't "vague," the meanings of the words involved are pretty clear. People routinely offer suggestions about how to deal with emotional and physical issues based on anecdotes or claims that a few studies here and there offer evidence that maybe there is something to it. Lots of things people do to handle their issues, especially emotionally, wouldn't pass a clinical trial because those standards are extremely rigorous (and they should be) and it can be impractical or unethical to perform a sufficiently well controlled test.
But just because it's not adequately supported to pass a clinical trial doesn't mean there isn't something to it or even that claims are "unsupported." You can support a claim lots of ways, including with anecdotes or even just inductive reasoning. It's one thing to say that it doesn't clear the bar for proof we expect of the FDA or to establish a scientific consensus, but that's different from intimating that they're liars.
They made a mistake in their ad copy, that's clear enough. But mistakes like these are common when amateurs try to start up a business or pursue an interest. Claims that they're snake-oil salesmen or frauds because they spoke colloquially, rather than couching terms in the vague messaging of people steeped in the business culture and lingo of health supplements, pharmaceuticals, or medical device manufacturers is really excessive.
I, for one, am sick of the constant stream of products that "may possibly support the promotion of boosting of enhancement of the body's natural immune functioning in conjunction with diet and exercise". It's obnoxiously dilute and I think nearly everything in the supplement aisle claims to help with immune, anxiety and/or digestion in some way.
People have been eating roots and plants to help with digestion, anxiety, etc. since before the invention of writing and probably before the invention of fire. Of course there's going to be a bajillion remedies asserting something to that effect. We've been at it for a while.
Products are vague about their wording because they're legally required to be.
Normally when people talk about citing evidence, they're referring to strong evidence. Citing weak evidence can be about as bad as citing none at all, depending on how weak it is.
I'm not sure why this is downvoted so heavily. It's an important clarification that they didn't claim they could cure disorders, only help with them. Yes, that's also not legal, but this comment wasn't disagreeing with that.
The concern I might have with it is if they raised the money with the claim then removed the claim after people had pledged. It wasn't clear to me from the article what the timeline was with changing the language and the end of the campaign.
Shouldn't there be some protection from editing original claims, and if changed, that its clear when and what changed in the wording? I find the whole thing ridiculous.
FWIW, Kickstarter won't let you change the text of a reward tier as long as someone's pledged for it. You can change the text of the main pitch all you like, though.
Good point. For major edits like this — especially where claims violated Kickstarter's TOS — it would seem appropriate to require the creator to send a message to all backers that communicates the change and the reason for it. Otherwise many backers might not find out about the changed language.
You don't even need to get a refund. Kickstarter doesn't collect money until the end of the campaign, so you can change, withdraw, increase your pledge as much as you want with a couple clicks.
Gravity backer here. They sent out an email to all the backers about the change.
> That said, we wanted to clarify that our blanket is not an FDA approved medical device, and as such, we've tweaked the language on our Kickstarter accordingly. We hope you understand, and we’re very excited for you to try this out for yourselves.
Precisely. I have no problem hearing about what worked for you. The moment you start telling someone else it'll work for them, especially if you're looking to get paid based on that claim, you better back it up with evidence.
I read that to mean "somebody else's scientific (counter)claims", similar to how en_US might contain "according to person X's math". Took me a while to stop being annoyed by the latter, admittedly.
If they had just advertised it as "a heavy blanket" do you think it would have gotten funding?
It got funding because they made unsubstantiated medical claims, which is illegal for good reason. Otherwise I could sell you "anti-cancer rocks" from my driveway.
Tons of people (particularly on the autism spectrum) like weighted blankets, I don't think it's unreasonable that such a project could get kickstarted.
My anecdata matches yours here (notably I know multiple people with both autism and anxiety issues who swear by weighted blankets for helping them sleep).
The problem is more about not having customers expect the blanket to cure their psychiatric problems. Such language makes it easy to take advantage of someone who isn't in a mentally strong place at the moment - and puts their hopes of being "normal" into such products when the evidence isn't there.
I don't think the product itself is so bad: I like the weight of blankets when I sleep and like them to touch the bed on both sides of me. I'd completely understand a lightweight but weighted blanket during the summer, and I'm guessing it would make some folks feel comforted and so on. I'd much rather them have this sort of honesty in their advertising than the language they had.
Misleading medical claims aside, this looks like another Coolest Cooler, in which the creator is in over his head. His original goal was $21,500, and since going viral, he keeps adding more spots to the "Early Bird" backers. The creator has listed no other team members and has no production experience himself. If you read his bio carefully [0], he alludes to having production experience, but lists no names or links whatsoever except to his media company, which is literally a Youtube channel with ~50 subscribers. [1]. That his campaign had misleading medical claims seems to be a hint that he doesn't have medical experts or designers who have experience in this area.
This can actually require less overhead than Coolest Cooler, due to its particular usage of materials. The only big logistical issues will be shipping super heavy blankets and sourcing those materials. That said, adding more early bird backers is another sort of over-promising, and where you're gonna end up biting off more than you can chew.
A friend of mine has a weighted blanket, and it's been a godsend for her anxiety. But she's autistic. Temple Grandin wrote quite a lot about the therapeutic value of pressure for autistic people, but I haven't heard of it for neurotypicals before.
Why does kickstarter allow so many awful projects on their site? This is very far from the worst of them. I enjoy reading https://www.reddit.com/r/shittykickstarters/ but they have nothing to gain from being associated with this kind of stuff.
Two kinds of bad crowdfunding projects come to mind: One where the product is in the realm of possibility with today's engineering and can be reproduced in mass quantity, but the creator dropped the ball in terms of logistics and communication.
The other kind is the one where the product is very pie-in-the-sky, requires multiple breakthroughs in the process of making said product, and the creator shows a clear lack of expertise or reputation in the disciplines for making the product.
Often, the people that take the bait in the second group are an extreme case of wishful thinking of wanting their past vision of the future (which is today) to be full of wonderful tech products, and they see something remotely futuristic and throw their money at it.
Good. I feel sorry for the people who have already backed it; it's hideously expensive for what it is. A nicer finish I'm sure than a home-made one, but crying out for cheap knock-off copies to be on the market within 6 months.
A "knock-off" like the dozen or so companies who have been selling weighted blankets for years? Forget six months, you could have one before this campaign ends.
A couple hundred isn't that expensive for a comforter. Ever been to Williams Sonoma? And that's basically on the lower tier of the high end.
If anything, the only thing backers should be worried about is if they wind up having to spend all their money on litigation defense and not being able to go produce the thing.
No, wrong country. I have been to John Lewis [1] many times; their duvets can be expensive too. The thing with the weighted blanket is you'll need one of these duvets as well - or other blankets - for much of the year. It's an extra.
It felt really scammy from the get go but it is an anxious and well off person so I haven't tried to knock down this idea (since worst case scenario the placebo does not work).
I have still shared this article, they will conclude whatever they want.
The answer: people with disabilities.
But by advertising in this way, infomercials appealed both to those with disabilities (who recognized the implied relevance to their condition) and those who benefited from the curb-cut effect[1]. They were able to sell more units for a lower price and also avoid making explicit medical claims.
This kickstarter, possibly following from the popularity of fidget toys, decided to be more explicit.
---
[1] The Curb Cut effect is a generally useful observation in UX design you can read about in a few places. Here is one: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_curb_cut_effect OXO-brand kitchen tools for arthritis are another example of it.