41

I can't seem to understand this weird sentence I saw as the first sentence on this shampoo bottle

Picture of the bottle in question

Ordinary shampoos need not apply! [...]

There seems to be missing a part of the sentence, right? I have never seen such a sentence before, it seems so weird, I'm pretty sure something is missing. But again, I'm still learning English, so I can be totally wrong :)

Is a "to" missing?

Ordinary shampoos need not to apply!

But that seems weird as well.

I think it means the same as

You don't need to apply ordinary shampoos! (because ours is the best? - maybe?)

Is the "translation" correct? If the first sentence is right (it probably is), are there other examples of such "weird" sentences?

The question Meaning of “X need not apply”? on English Language & Usage suggests that it is used for jobs, i.e.

Pencils need not apply! Only humans can.

For a job that pencils shouldn't bother applying, because the job is only for humans.

Is it the same as in the shampoo bottle example? That the bottle is way better than the other bottles, so they don't need to bother "applying" to a "shampoo bottle competition" (or similar), because they will lose?

Community
  • 1
Rakete1111
  • 717
  • 1
  • 7
  • 12
  • 1
    About the to, I can say that need is also a modal similar to would and .... . But I am not sure about the meaning, too ! :) Perhaps it means you must not or you should not use the ordinary ones ! – Cardinal Jun 29 '16 at 10:16
  • Rakete1111 - See this English Language and Usage post! – stangdon Jun 29 '16 at 10:22
  • 1
    @stangdon Is the meaning then the same? Because shampoo bottles don't apply for a job, does it mean that that bottle is superior? – Rakete1111 Jun 29 '16 at 10:30
  • 6
    It means the advertising guys wanted to be funny. – Stephie Jun 29 '16 at 10:31
  • 1
    @Rakete1111 - More or less, yes. Shampoo bottles don't literally apply for a job, but your second guess is correct - "Ordinary shampoos should not even bother challenging us, because we are clearly superior." – stangdon Jun 29 '16 at 11:30
  • 8
    Advertising slogans are often deliberately confusing; a confusing slogan does not make a claim which could be refuted in a lawsuit. My favourite two examples are "Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper" -- than what? Milk? Gasoline? And then the next slogan for that product was the brain-destroying "Diet Dr. Pepper; there's nothing diet about it!" Except the name, and the fact that it is a low calorie drink marketed towards dieters. Don't expect advertising slogans to make sense or even to be grammatical. Apple's "Think different", for example, is ungrammatical. – Eric Lippert Jun 29 '16 at 14:59
  • Was there any more context on the bottle? – Fiksdal Jun 29 '16 at 16:54
  • 1
    If we take the "job" to refer to "cleaning hair" then the job concept still applies. – GalacticCowboy Jun 29 '16 at 17:31
  • @Fiksdal That sentence is the first one in the long description paragraph of the bottle, the sentence after it is: "Get a head start every morning and experience the tingle of invigorating tea tree oil, peppermint and lavender." – Rakete1111 Jun 29 '16 at 18:14
  • @Rakete1111 It would be useful if you took a photo of the whole bottle and added it to the question. – Fiksdal Jun 29 '16 at 18:19
  • @Fiksdal ok added :) – Rakete1111 Jun 29 '16 at 18:35
  • @rakete1111 Yes, it's like the top answer says. They are saying that ordinary shampoos are totally unwanted for the job (the job being the customer's hair.) – Fiksdal Jun 29 '16 at 18:38
  • It is a way of saying "other brands of shampoo are not qualified for the job" by using the X need-not-apply meme. – zyx Jun 29 '16 at 22:11
  • Related – Amani Kilumanga Jun 30 '16 at 00:13
  • By the way, can anyone guess what is the last word in the French version of the line in question? – Anton Sherwood Jun 30 '16 at 19:53
  • 2
    @AntonSherwood "Les shampooings ordinaires ne font pas le poids" which literally means "Ordinary shampoos don't make the weight". "Making the weight" being a french idiom for "Matching" something or someone. – zakinster Jul 01 '16 at 09:05

6 Answers6

44

There are two issues here.

  1. As Cardinal says, need sometimes behaves like a modal verb: 1) taking a 'bare' infinitive instead of one marked with to, 2) uninflected for 3d person singular, and 3) deployed without do support Specifically, it may be used this way in negatives and questions.

    Need he pursue this any farther?
    He need not pursue this any farther.

    But this use is not obligatory. You may also employ it normally, with a marked infinitive and do support.

    Does he need to pursue this any further?
    He doesn't need to pursue this any further.

  2. "No X need apply" is a joking adaptation of a phrase from the last era when the US was suffering from severe anti-immigrant sentiment: when jobs were posted in newspapers and on businesses they were sometimes accompanied by notices that

    No Irish need apply
    No Italians need apply

    meaning that Irish or Italians or other immigrant group should not bother applying for the job since this employer would not consider hiring them.

    The shampoo puns on the two meanings of apply to assert its superiority to "ordinary" brands.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
16

This has nothing to do with applying shampoo to hair, nor is it inextricably linked to racism.

"X need not apply" is a fairly common way to boast. It means "our quality is so high, that alternatives shouldn't bother trying to compete". For instance, at a car show with Bugattis and McLarens, Lexus promoters need not apply because they're not in the same league.

There doesn't need to be any actual competition being applied for, and the first item doesn't actually have to be incomparably better than the second. It's just a figure of speech.

Examples found on Google:

"Since then we have been blessed with the DS, which will over-write the GameBoy entirely, and bring forth the future of portable gaming. Sony need not apply." Gamespot

"A good burger - and by 'good', I mean a really fine, high-end, luxury burger - is one of life's finest pleasures. Burger King and McDonalds need not apply here." Ron Longwell photography

AshleyZ
  • 277
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
    "nor is it inextricably linked to racism" ... that's not clear to me. It's invoking the wording of a discriminatory job posting, and, for me, that association is always clearly present, which makes this figure of speech a provocative one. – Don Hatch Jun 29 '16 at 20:13
  • 7
    Even in the job-application context, there are plenty of examples where it's discriminating on a trait other than race. For instance, "previous applicants need not apply", "those with criminal records need not apply", "freshmen need not apply", "slackers need not apply", etc. – AshleyZ Jun 29 '16 at 21:57
  • 2
    @AshleyZ: nobody disputes that it has come to be used in contexts with unconnected with race. But the suggestion (which I agree with) is that it has it origins in a racist expression. – Colin Fine Jun 30 '16 at 11:59
  • Yes, its origins are racist-- but more than that, unlike some other expressions whose originally pointedness may have actually been blunted and forgotten over the centuries, this on hasn't. @mckenzm has posted an answer which puts really well what I was trying to say-- it is very much a "racially charged expression" today. – Don Hatch Jun 30 '16 at 17:56
  • I thought Irish and Italian described nationalities not races. All bigotry is not racism. Or maybe it is these days. Even journalists are sloppy with their language now. Everyone wants some wiggle room in case they have to argue that what they said was not actually what they said. – ColleenV Jun 30 '16 at 18:12
  • 2
    @ColleenV Generally, discrimination based on nationality is considered a form of racism. You're correct that not all bigotry is racist: gender, sexual orientation and religion based bigotries are not racism (although, in some cases it is hard to separate racism from religion to the uneducated.) To my knowledge, there isn't a single word that represents "discrimination based on country but not by race." Even if it does exist, I'm sure racism covers countries as well as skin-tone/physical features. – corsiKa Jun 30 '16 at 18:32
  • 2
    @Davor No, I'm not on Tumblr. I'm on a site about the English language, and according to the OED, a race is "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group" - I feel a country counts as a group of people who generally share a culture, history, and language. Hence, discrimination by country of origin is a form of discrimination by race. Is there a fault in this logic? – corsiKa Jun 30 '16 at 19:52
  • 4
    The phrase may have some discriminatory origins but I think it may have lost some of those negative overtones with time. Starting off with a "racially charged expression" would be a bad marketing blunder. – J.R. Jun 30 '16 at 19:52
  • 1
    @corsiKa So if I'm prejudiced against South Africans which race do I think is superior? Just because some people are sloppy and use bigot and racist interchangeably doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to a higher standard. Why use racism instead of bigotry or prejudice? – ColleenV Jun 30 '16 at 20:34
  • 1
    @ColleenV There are some exceptions, which is why the statement was qualified with "generally." Obviously, places with a history of colonialism or mass immigration will be harder to nail down. Most countries, however, will fall under the OED definition - in particular, the source countries targeted by "X need not apply" would meet that definition. – corsiKa Jun 30 '16 at 20:54
  • 1
    @ColleenV I should point out that when the UN tried to tackle this, they stated the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. So there is definitely precedent in using nationality to qualify as racism. And while I agree that there's a small degree of ambiguity, I'm not sure it's worth the time to coin a new term considering the number of exceptions is rather small. – corsiKa Jun 30 '16 at 21:04
  • @corsiKa Actually I think there is some harm. When I say Mexican, to you think of a black person? And yet there are afromexicanos. When I say American, what race do you picture? Law makers are not the arbiter of English language usage. Language has the power to change people's perception of reality. You should be careful with it. – ColleenV Jun 30 '16 at 22:36
  • @corsiKa - the idea of nationality being the same as race is, to say the least, insane. – Davor Jul 01 '16 at 21:53
5

The primary questions raised are:

Is the "translation" correct? If the first sentence is right (it probably is), are there other examples of such "weird" sentences?

...

Is it the same as in the shampoo bottle example? That the bottle is way better than the other bottles, so they don't need to bother "applying" to a "shampoo bottle competition" (or similar), because they will lose?

This last question is reasonably close to the actual intended meaning (as inferred from the entire shampoo bottle label context).

An important unstated premise is understanding that marketers use every word, phrase, typeface, color, etc. on labels in an attempt to improve the chances of success in the marketplace. The sentence in question is of a persuasive nature designed to increase sales by targeting the consumers both in the store (prospective purchaser) and in the shower (previous and hopefully loyal future purchaser).

Many of these answers focused on the origin of the phraseology, a question that wasn't asked and only indirectly informs an answer to the questions asked.

The statement Ordinary shampoos need not apply! communicates a number 1st level messages:

  • This shampoo is not ordinary
  • (To use the questioner's wording) This shampoo is, in fact, so extraordinary that "ordinary" shampoos wouldn't even qualify to compete in a shampoo contest in which this shampoo was competing.
  • Given the phrases common usage in job postings, however it's something akin to "Announcement regarding the open position for the role of washing this consumer's hair. The shampoo in hand is so far superior to the other potential applicants that it would be a wasted effort for them to apply and therefore of the consumer's time to consider or 'interview' them."
  • An alternate reading is as a taunt from one potential applicant to all other shampoos.

As other answers have indicated, there is an additional layer of meaning with the other relevant meanings of the word "apply" describing the process of using shampoo on one's hair. Thus the alternate sub-meaning is that this shampoo negates the need for other shampoos to be "applied" to one's hair.

It finally does all of the above while, arguably, subtly raising the question to consumer standing the store aisle reading a shampoo label whether their time is being well spent on this task in light of the fact that the shampoo in hand is so far superior to all others.

To go further down the advertising-lens analysis rabbit hole, the tone is intended to form an emotional bond with the consumer by asking them to join this shampoo in subtly mocking the pretentious or just overly complex wording of other shampoos' labels. This one will "shoot straight" and talk plainly, so therefore should be trusted.

The consumer is thus smarter by saving time in not evaluating other inferior products AND feels good about joining forces with "cool" shampoo on the aisle that is not afraid of calling out the other uncool shampoos.

ballenf
  • 151
  • 1
  • 2
    +1 for"Announcement regarding the open position for the role of washing this consumer's hair. The shampoo in hand is so far superior to the other potential applicants that it would be a wasted effort for them to apply and therefore of the consumer's time to consider or 'interview' them.", saving me the effort of writing another answer. – DCShannon Jun 30 '16 at 21:38
  • @DCShannon Yes, that's the gem here :-) Thanks for pointing it out. – Don Hatch Jul 01 '16 at 22:03
3

The given sentence is

Ordinary shampoos need not apply!

and you suggest

Ordinary shampoos need not to apply!

These two sentences actually have very different meanings. The first means that it is not obligatory for ordinary shampoos to apply; the second means that it is obligatory for ordinary shampoos to refrain from applying.

As for what "Ordinary shampoos need not apply!" means, I'd say that it essentially means nothing. As StoneyB says, it's a pun on terminology used in job adverts or mock job adverts. Its original usage was often obnoxiously racist, though it can be used in a non-racist way: for example, you could say something like "Obama seeks new Supreme Court judge: conservatives need not apply." In the context of shampoo, it really makes no sense, though. It seems that somebody just thought, "Well, you apply shampoo to your head and 'X need not apply' is an idiom, so let's put the two together." It fails because it's trying to link to completely different meanings of "apply" that don't want to be linked.

Community
  • 1
David Richerby
  • 8,055
  • 27
  • 45
3

Although we may like to think otherwise. It is a racially charged expression, commonly used in advertisments for residential leasing, employment, education, and even volunteer positions. It is exclusivist, but possibly compassonately considerate as a nice way to say "no, not yours, can't have".

Intended to target the "inferior" it adds an air of superiority to the product in this case.

It is an expression still used today. Substitute riff-raff, scrubs, noobs as necessary.

mckenzm
  • 221
  • 1
  • 6
  • 1
    Excellent analysis! Taken literally, "Ordinary shampoos need not apply" doesn't quite make sense. But it evokes the attitude of a bigot's feeling of superiority to get the superiority to "rub off" onto the shampoo (rhetorically) while making a joke of it. A learner needs to know three things: the two points in StoneyB's answer, and the fact that the sentence is deliberate nonsense used for rhetorical effect. – Ben Kovitz Jul 01 '16 at 14:56
-2

The sentence is fine.

It's a joke that makes reference to a popular song from the 1970s (Signs, by Five Man Electrical Band).

And the sign said "Long-haired freaky people need not apply"

The next sentence on the shampoo bottle, ("Get a head start every morning...") is a terrible, so very terrible, pun. Clearly the people selling your shampoo think they're funny. They are not.

Ben Kovitz
  • 27,566
  • 3
  • 53
  • 109
John
  • 105
  • 2
  • 7
    It's almost certainly not a reference to any particular obscure 45-year-old song that happens to use this very common idiom. – David Richerby Jun 29 '16 at 21:27
  • 1
    @Richerby: I might find your argument convincing,... if only you had offered one. "Almost certainly", "obscure"; I'm stunned at how useless your comment is. You offer literally nothing.

    You call it "obscure". Music critics call it "iconic". It's been covered countless times and re-released as recently as 2011 (so much for "old"). It has become idiomatic precisely because of the song's impact on language.

    I'm sorry my comment found you in such a bad mood. Hope trolling me has offered you some entertainment.

     – John Jun 30 '16 at 00:05
  • 3
    Give a single reason for anyone to believe that it's a reference to this specific instance of a well-known idiom. – David Richerby Jun 30 '16 at 00:07
  • Ah, I see. You do have an argument, which seems to be "You're wrong, prove you're not wrong." Two things are obvious, the first of which is researchable: (1) Idioms start somewhere and "iconic" popular culture is a fertile source; (2) You have a rigid mind and cranky disposition. – John Jun 30 '16 at 00:11
  • 10
    No, really. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. You're the one claiming that it's a reference to this song, so it is your job to justify your claim. You're also claiming that the idiom came about because of this song. That claim is easily disproved: wikipedia gives examples of it in songs in the 1860s, more than a century earlier. – David Richerby Jun 30 '16 at 01:24
  • @John - when I read the question, I immediately thought of long haired freaky people, the Irish were a close second. It's likely our age. – JTP - Apologise to Monica Jun 30 '16 at 03:25
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby Looks to me like your use of the dismissive term "obscure" caused some understandable defensiveness. Perhaps you might want to retract it? Your reference to the wikipedia article section about "No irish need apply" in the 1860s neatly refutes John's main point, and is the most valuable thing that's been said in this thread and perhaps the whole page. – Don Hatch Jun 30 '16 at 18:09
  • 1
    I don't think the shampoo bottle is referencing Signs per se; I think you've simply cited an earlier instance of this grammatical construct. To say that Signs inspired the bottle's language is an overreach, I think – unless you happened to be on the staff that drafted the language on the bottle and can testify otherwise. As for them being "not funny," it's certainly not as pedestrian as Directions: Lather. Rinse. Repeat. – J.R. Jun 30 '16 at 19:43
  • @J.R. Let's not forget that "repeat" is just a further marketing device to make you waste shampoo, since few people really need to wash their hair twice. – corsiKa Jun 30 '16 at 19:55
  • 2
    @corsiKa - Or more than twice, since the loop doesn't appear to have an exit condition ;-) – J.R. Jun 30 '16 at 19:58
  • Now I'm just having flash backs to my D- in algorithms back in uni... thanks... – corsiKa Jun 30 '16 at 20:00
  • I thought of that song, because that's the most ubiquitous usage in modern society, but there's no way to know if the marketing department was thinking of it specifically. – DCShannon Jun 30 '16 at 21:41
  • 1
    @DCShannon Again, I highly doubt that this 45-year-old song is "the most ubiquitous usage in modern society". This really was an extremely well-established phrase long before 1970. It was so common a century before that that it even had an acronym, in the days when acronyms barely existed. – David Richerby Jul 01 '16 at 10:49
  • John, (1) Pop culture is indeed a fertile source of idioms, but in this case, the song made reference to the already well-known idiom "need not apply". (2) Please consider http://meta.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice, especially "Focus on the post, not the person." Sometimes you quite reasonably think that a common phrase is a reference to X, and then you find out that X is not as well known as you thought or that the phrase predates X. You have to research the phrase a bit, or at least consider that other folks here may be giving you good information. None of us knows the whole language. – Ben Kovitz Jul 01 '16 at 13:58
  • 2
    @DCShannon Interesting that the song seems ubiquitous to you. I (AmE) knew the song, but I don't expect most people to know it, and I understood the song as making reference to well-known help-wanted signs in storefronts with a note that "Irish need not apply". That is, I understand that, in order to "get" the song, you have to know about those signs, and those signs were (and still are) common knowledge. The point of the song is, "They're treating hippies the way they used to treat the Irish." – Ben Kovitz Jul 01 '16 at 14:29
  • @DavidRicherby I understand it was common before 1970. That's why I used the word "modern", which I wouldn't apply to 50 years ago. I was born in the 80s. I've never actually seen such a sign in a shop, and the main reason I know about them is because of that song, and asking about what it was talking about. – DCShannon Jul 01 '16 at 17:26
  • @BenKovitz You make excellent points in your "Interesting that the song seems ubiquitous to you" comment, most especially I think you very clearly&accurately describe the point of the song. However I want to point out some sloppiness in your language, of which I'm not sure you're aware. You counter DCShannon's perception of ubiquity, which is of course relative to some subculture, with your "I don't expect most people know it", which is a very similar-sounding but opposite claim, expressed in the same "my subculture is the correct subculture on which to base this discussion" kind of language. – Don Hatch Jul 01 '16 at 22:25
  • @DonHatch I think the 600-character limit has probably caused some misunderstanding. I didn't take DCShannon's remark to mean "my subculture is the correct standard", nor did I mean my remark about how well-known the song is that way. I took DCShannon to just be reporting on the general culture as he sees it, and I was reporting on how it seems to me, on the premise that neither of us sees everything, and here on ELL we're just comparing notes. Common knowledge is the basis of language, but it's never completely shared, nor do any two people have exactly the same idea of what it includes. – Ben Kovitz Jul 01 '16 at 22:34
  • 1
    @BenKovitz yes, damn that 600 character limit. Also I missed the word "to" in your comment, which substantially softens it and in fact if I'd seen that I wouldn't have criticized. Thanks for your articulate and insightful comments. – Don Hatch Jul 02 '16 at 06:27
  • A conversation grew from this, at least, which is gratifying.

    DCShannon's note about no way of knowing is precisely to the point and perfectly refutes Richerby's dismissive "certainly [not]".

    My only point to add to my original answer is: Context. We're reading a marketing blurb on a shampoo bottle where the writer is demonstrably using humour. The context is highly suggestive of a reference to an iconic song. (I just hope "apply" isn't another terrible pun.)

     – John Jul 04 '16 at 16:20