Shark Shield: The costly alternative to common sense.

Such is the impression left by the article titled “Shark Shield ‘saves lives,’ published in an August issue of the Sunday Times.

From what I believe, this is a press release that was written following the recent waves of Australian shark attacks to introduce a new device that (according to the article) deters them.

As a means of generating good publicity, the product and its description could have sold itself to even the most difficult of skeptics; had it not been the method of how the promotion article was written for it.

The article starts off strong, successfully utilizing the tragic story of recent shark victim, Nick Edwards as a means of pulling the reader’s heart strings. He then writes a series of recounts of previous shark victim’s recounts.

The journalist then employs brand reinforcement by introducing the company manager of Shark Shield, known simply as “Mr. Gapp to comment indirectly on theses shark victim’s recounts, and how his state of the art device could have saved their limbs. He then attempts to persuade readers into considering the efficiency of the device by rendering feeble descriptions like: “sends out waves in the water that upsets sharks” when describing its mechanics.

Despite the vague explanation, the article begins to offer the reader a sense of confidence to the product until it segues into Surfing WA Chief, Mark Lane’s spiel on how to avoid shark encounters by offering no brainer advice like “don’t surf during dusk or dawn,” “don’t swim near bait fish or seals” and to finish it off “The ONLY way to avoid shark attacks is not to surf.”

To me, the shark repellent device- the fundamental grounds of the article becomes an afterthought.

Although I understand that it is not a journalist’s profession to “sell” or be bias in their recounts, it is obvious that the article was not written in its entirety as it seems not much research or direction was put into the article before its print.

This can be seen as the main body of the article was written entirely out of dialogue and carried no substantial explanation as to HOW the Shark shield, saves lives.

Even the headline, ‘Shark Shield” ‘Saves Lives’” gives readers doubts, as “saves lives” was plant in the viewers minds as a mere marketing quote as opposed to a headline-worthy fact.

At the end of day, I put myself in the shoes of the reader and questioned: Do I want a Shark Shield? Can my occasional visit to the beach be insured with six hundred dollars worth of scrap metal that (and I quote) “sends upsetting waves to sharks?” Is there even incentive to this article? Following a great deal of intense contemplation on what was delivered, I could conclude on one thing, whatever what the incentive of the writer, im with Chief Lane on this one; if you don’t want to be eaten by a shark.