Such efficatious claims were very much part of the early advertising in newspapers in Victorian times. Indeed the concept of children's shoes was an advertising rouse by Clarkes to attract the developing middle classes to buy their quality product. As we know there is really very little substancial information to support the need for shoe fitting for children , despite the obvious common sense of it all. Better consumer protection has meant 'silly claims' or misleading advertising is much less obvious than it was fivty or sixty years ago. The sport shoe companies have been aware of this in more recently years and moved completey away from any claims of what the shoe could do for you
(ie efficient performance) and and instead emphasised what you can achive in their shoe. (be all you can be).
I siuppose what this articles demonstrates is the potential to over extend expectation by niavety.
Many years ago the Consumer's Guide in the UK did a survey of consumers using
bunion shields and compared their effects to retailer's claims. Not surprisingly they found there was no independent evidence to support their use. Indeed all the data collected
suggested the progression of the HAV remained unabated. Rather than complain the consumers quiety put their apparatus in a drawer and forgot about them having paid the money. The report concluded if more consumers complained more about profucts not working then companies would not be able to sell their wares.
George Rendall did a project a few years back on the patient satisfaction post bunion surgery and reoccurance rates and found in his pilot,
despite 80+% reoccurance, 90 % of patients were delight post op with their surgery and
effects.