Slashdot Mirror
P&G Cuts More Than $100 Million In 'Largely Ineffective' Digital Ads (wsj.com)
schwit1 quotes the Wall Street Journal: Procter & Gamble said that its move to cut more than $100 million in digital marketing spend in the June quarter had little impact on its business, proving that those digital ads were largely ineffective. Almost all of the consumer product giant's advertising cuts in the period came from digital, finance chief Jon Moeller said on its earnings call Thursday. The company targeted ads that could wind up on sites with fake traffic from software known as "bots," or those with objectionable content. "What it reflected was a choice to cut spending from a digital standpoint where it was ineffective, where either we were serving bots as opposed to human beings or where the placement of ads was not facilitating the equity of our brands," he said... The cuts echo marketing executives' mounting concerns around the efficacy of digital advertising and the growing perception that they are wasting money on digital ads that never reach their intended audience.
Or even better, bringing jobs back to the US.
It's a race to the bottom, folks. Can we start paying to read instead?
I could have told them that for 99 million dollars.
Ads have no place on the internet.
If your site has ads, you're a massive loser.
Same goes for javascript...... biatches
If you want to do well in business you have to get creative in marketing your product. I've run multiple businesses of different types and I'd say that marketing dollars rarely do more than cover themselves. The best advertising tends to be free even if there is some cost. Be it throwing money at business cards or spending time running around distributing those business cards (in the case of a local business that catered to people's needs at home/work). Other businesses I've run succeeded mostly from very carefully targeted messages. Not much ever comes from the advertising- not that we don't advertise too. Certainly there is something to be said from getting out and talking to potential customers (conferences and the likes). But the most valuable advertising tends to come from your customers own mouths. Not some advertisement you put online or in the news paper.
They spend money on both genders' products.
Ads on the internet, whether as a static image, flashing background or at the beginning of a video do not sway or interest me in any way shape or form. In fact they annoy me and make me look for ways to block.
TV on the other hand doesn't bother me as much. I think I has to do with active seeking of entertainment vs. passive. We accept passive intrusions more than active.
If I were an advertising executive I would be figuring out how to execute a paradigm shift in advertisements in an active consumption world. The one who can execute that successfully will be the ruler of billions.
Schooner Tuna.
The tuna with a heart!
220/221. Whatever it takes.
But we do respond to authenticity. Make a better product or a better company, and show us. We'll buy it then.
P&g actually did this once iirc, making saran wrap less toxic but also less profitable and also sadly less effective.
It took them $100 Million to figure out what they probably knew themselves.
I have more or less trained myself to not pay any attention to ads. This could be part of my overall "training" in the workforce to try and block out everything while I focus on said task, while co-workers are nagging me about lunch, beers, other projects, etc., while I'm trying to focus.
Regardless, the constant barrage of online advertising from the flashing text of the late 90's, animated GIF's of the 00's, interactive flash from this decade, are enough to make any human that spends a large portion of their time online, shy away from this garbage.
The idea of ads doesn't bother me. The forceful "We'll make you read it, like it or not, and we know we aren't targeting you, we only need 1% to respond" type of advertising, is what made me think like this. I actually feel GOOD when I know there is an ad and I know I haven't digested any of it.
With this type of reward system, its no wonder I enjoy not looking at ads. At some level, there is a piece of me that feels that I'm "giving it to the man", when I purposefully don't read their ads. By spending any energy even avoiding this, I also feel like I have lost. In the end it makes me despise the system even further.
Like everything, the bad apples destroy the good intentions of others. I'm sure I would benefit from some form of advertising as there are services I do use and would benefit from if they actually were "cheaper, faster, better", but when I can't trust any of it, the sites that claim "low impact ads", end up getting hurt first, and the 1% of the time I might care, I miss.
Of course, on the other hand, there is a part of me that feels the folks making a killing off of ads no one pays any attention to, are in one sense "winning" from the perspective that the companies, willing to dump money into something so worthless, deserve what they get.
But the most valuable advertising tends to come from your customers own mouths. Not some advertisement you put online or in the news paper.
That's not true.
For many businesses and products, advertising is very effective and results in significantly increased sales. BUT you must have a product that people will want to buy and you must reach the right people with your ads. Just blindly throwing ads on the Interwebs is a waste of money, and I'm surprised it has taken so long for companies to figure this out.
and generate -negative- brand response. That's particularly true of in-line ads, and most of all of Facebook ads that are mixed in (deliberately camouflaged) with user-generated content.
And that's before taking user data mining into consideration, both sucking up my data, and then using it (most often to show me ads for something I've already purchased.)
back in the day. some higher-up made a similar speech as Moeller, but it was about reducing "enrollment" which is "employees". the salesforce was reduced ~ 60% within two years. overall management went down 30%. upper levels were combined and not renewed. P&G is too big to change quickly. when they finally decide to change, it happens faster than standard adjustments. still have friends there. it's sorta like a government job. keep boss happy keep job.
My guess is people repeat shop at places like Amazon where they had a good experience. They go directly there, type in what they want, and buy it. No advertising needed (or even seen).
I use ad blockers 100% of the time. I also don't click on ads on any page. It is bad enough to see ads on TV which I avoid by recording the shows and then using the Fast Forward Button on my remote control.
I don't care what an ad says. If I need a product I will buy it; if not the ad will have no effect on my buying a product.
Your digital ads might work better. STOP SHOVING THEM IN OUR FACE! Make your ads static, like in a newspaper, magazine, etc. When I'm reading an article and start to scroll down, and then all of a sudden some stupid ad starts blaring in my face, and I have to scroll up to shut the #(!@(^% thing off, it makes me NOT to want to do business with that company. When people have to install ad blockers to at least enjoy some content without having to worry about pop ups, pop unders, auto launching video ads (with the volume cranked to the max), then you know you have a problem. There are sights (like /.) that I whitelist because their ads are STATIC. THAT
is how web ads should be. I'm more likely to click on a static ad, than a shove-it-in-your-face
ad.
They spend money on both genders' products.
No, we don't. You're thinking of transvestites, aka drag queens, who just play dress-up on Friday nights.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Let's extrapolate P&G's take on digital ad effectiveness and observe that Millennial attention span for them is 5 seconds and try to predict the future on digital ads if this applies across the board.
We know that where there are eyeballs, there is a buying market.
The advertisers know our demographics and buying habits and already target ads, so more information isn't the answer.
What do you think the future of digital ads will be?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Sure, as soon as federated subscription becomes a thing again. Back in 1999, the web had a $9.99 per month service called Adult Check. Subscribers could access numerous participating sites, whose respective publishers were paid based on page view count. I assume the name was supposed to mean "Because grown-ups can pay for nice things."
But nowadays it's $4/mo for WIRED, a similar amount for The Atlantic, etc. Take the number of distinct domains in your past month's browser history and multiply by $4 to see how much you'd have to pay.
What they're investing in quite heavily is fake reviews. Figuring out how to guarantee five star reviews on Amazon and others without alerting people is what's getting their former advertising money. So far they aren't doing so well. 3000 reviews for bounty paper towels, and about a quarter of them didn't get past fakespot.
I've been saying this on and off for years. We're all about to get a taste of all that efficiency folks have been clamoring about for decades. All that bureaucracy and waste is one of the only things that made it possible to pry even a bit of money out of the hands of the super rich. If you think the economy sucks now wait till it's running at peak efficiency.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Marketers that think their shit don't stink can go to Hell as far as I'm concerned. If that means site XYZ has to shutter, I'm ok with that because it's a shitty business model.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
P&G and google would be completely in the right to pull the plug on any ads there, as that website's ad impressions are not come by honestly. There are about a dozen moderators whose secondary jobs are to pump up ad views by cranking out bland posts under a list of logins that rotates every few years. They'll ban you for pointing out strange patterns of post history. Virulent unmoderated racism (also by logins that rotate and return in waves every few years as they get blocked by other posters) is, however, ok. I have quite a bit more than speculation to back this up.
Slashdot has a lot of click friendly folks. Some even have money to spend.
It is bad enough to see ads on TV which I avoid by recording the shows and then using the Fast Forward Button on my remote control.
How much have you paid TiVo for the privilege of avoiding TV ads? Or if you instead rent a DVR from your pay TV provider, how much have you paid for DVR rental since you started doing so?
On the rare occasions I see ads, they're almost always for things I already know about. Who the fuck buys a Coke because they saw a commercial for it? Literally everyone in America knows who they are, there is no reason why they need to advertise anymore except for new products. Likewise for any other big brand - sure, maybe Disney needs to advertise their latest movie, because it's new, but what is the point of Ford reminding everyone "hey, that F-150 that's been a staple of the American truck market for most people's entire lives is still around"?
Whatever tiny psychological effect that comes from constantly pestering people can't be worth the huge cost of it all.
There's a bit of saying in advertising. Half of your money in advertising is always wasted. The trick is to filter out what half you can throw away and replace as quick as possible. And this just proved that Facebook's NSA style of mass collection and tailored advertising just don't work. Google is lucky in that they have many other products and services that they offer. And there's another issue that is probably not being considered by too many people that Procter and Gamble's advertising policies are known to signal the trend in which advertising is going. And if they say that Facebook's product is useless other people will listen and change accordingly.
There's a real solid chance that Facebook is screwed. And if they don't bounce back from this it might signal of their downfall.
Not like you think "oh I want that today"
You're only going to get them if the doc thinks you need them anyway
In the beginning, well early on, there was this thing called google and when I was interested in buying something, I'd search and find the companies selling the thing. Then I'd go to these companies websites via the very convenient links google returned. I'd look over the products and select the one I wanted and either buy it online or go to brick and mortar. Back then companies spent money providing info on their web sites. As others have said, I completely ignore web ads, and pretty effectively block the obnoxious ones on a computer. I find on mobile, this is somewhat more difficult, so I rarely use mobile for browsing. So for me, P&G and many others are just throwing money away by paying for ads on the web. My 2 cents. Of course if the jig is up, facebook, twatter, and many other social media companies will be toast. I have my fingers crossed.
I've run multiple businesses of different types
That in itself is a warning not to listen to you. If you couldn't run any of multiple businesses well enough to stay, I'm not sure I'd take your advice as golden. At least not for the business - perhaps it was for you.
P&g actually did this once iirc, making saran wrap less toxic but also less profitable and also sadly less effective.
Less effective, how? Did she break free and spilled hot grits?
Noishkel wrote:
From the article (if only people read before commenting):
The very next sentence though:
Given how many adverts for Pampers nappies I see, especially as a proportion of total adverts I see, I think P&G need to get accurate, not creative.
I don't have a small human, I have no intention of having a small human and I don't buy nappies for my friends. Pampers wont fit me and I don't own a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California Spider so I'm really struggling to see how P&G expect a return on that particular advertising spend.
You sound like you don't like drag queens very much. That's not very progressive.
I use ad blockers, except for video content via Roku, where there isn't any choice.
The free video channels on roku run abusive ads - the same ad back to back 4 times. It got to the point that it was just easier to record the roku content and remove all the advertising breaks.
I will admit that during the last political campaign season, I learned about the main candidates through Roku ads before knowing anything else about them - just during the "cutting." The empty house seat campaigns were the most expensive in history - over $50M for 1 seat. Had the opposition visiting my house 2x a day for 3 weeks prior to the vote. Sorta happy they wasted their money here, but really wish it had been used more constructively - like to fund our state medicare program. Shame on them.
There has been a war brewing between old and new media. These two videos (if you can excuse the pithiness) summarize it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IYzF-zLMw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cQHNtc3y0M
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
ads from a power company are useless to begin with. They're usually a monopoly and everybody loves electricity. Why bother with ads then?
Electric utility ads are often safety PSAs (avoid power lines, call before you dig, etc.) or generic ads for electric appliances (such as "the electric heat pump" of no particular brand).
How is an advertiser (or a publisher that takes advertisers' money and runs it's ads) supposed "to get accurate" other than by tracking you from one website to the next, building a profile of your web browsing habits, and using data from that to infer your interests?
I remember back in the early-mid nineties (I guess I had internet access from around '94 through the university I worked at) how much nicer it was when everything wasn't filled with ads and most of the content was just from people with an interest in something.
How fast was home Internet access back in the good old days you remember? Without commercial works, is there really enough demand to sustain a market for high speed Internet? Or ought Internet access at a public or university library during regular library hours to be enough for anyone?
It looks like you're using Pi-hole filtering software. To view this comment, please add this site to Pi-hole's whitelist.
From the article (if only people read before commenting):
Not every Slashdot commenter subscribes to The Wall Street Journal, in which the featured article was published. To which sites should Slashdot users expect to have to subscribe before participating in comments?
So you equate the truth with hate? You have a problem. The LGBTQ has for decades tried to confuse the public as to the difference between transvestites and drag queens, and transsexuals, and to a large extent they've succeeded, both in the public's mind and among their own members.
This has led to the public not wanting transsexuals in women's washrooms. Why? Because transvestism is a sexual fetish at its' core. Transsexualism is not. It's a recognized medical condition, with a recognized treatment protocol. Transvestites should not be attempting to ride on the coat-tails of transsexuals' medical legitimacy. Transsexuals had general acceptance until the LGBTQ co-opted transsexuals for their own purposes. Now almost everyone assumes that transsexuals are gay, when only 50% are, 33% are bi, and only 1 out of 6 is gay, same as almost everyone doesn't know the difference between transvestites and transsexuals. They assume that one is just a more extreme case of the other, if they think about it at all.
Transvestites and drag queens should not have the right to use the other sex's washroom, because at their core they are men. You don't change sexual or gender identity just by changing your clothes.
They are free to do what they want; however lumping them in with transsexuals has caused way too many problems over the last 40 years, so screw that. Transsexuals do NOT need the lgbtq to "represent" them. Why the hell would a straight transsexual attend pride parades? Especially when organizers say they represent transsexuals because they have floats with drag queens ???
That's just fucked up. It's also dead wrong.
I've been arguing in favour of same-sex marriage since the '80s, not because it affects me in any shape, matter, or form, but because rights are rights. Back the I was sauying "why should only straight people get to enjoy the fun of divorce? " Though I was also arguing for the alternative - the abolition of marriage. It's an obsolete institution, and it also interferes with the individual's right to freedom of association. And for all those who say "abolish marriage? Think of the children!", I say grow up, judges already award child support to children whose parents aren't married. This is the 21st century AD, not BC.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I've always wondered how advertising justifies its spending, never moreso than in the internet era.
Personally, I believe the internet would be well served by a drop in advertising revenue by a couple of orders of magnitude. Many,, many people who make their living mysteriously "on the internet" would of course have to get real jobs.
-Styopa
Yea this whole "offensive content" campaign by old media that popped up over night was extremely obvious.
"Youtube is baaaaad!!11 Only we provide wholesome advertsing services!!1". No conflict of interest here, nossir.
How long were you on the case Sherlock.
Beards are often not the highest quality option for a brown man depending on which worlds within which he is attempting to increase status and resources... P.S. Allahu Snackbar!
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/
I've met a lot of Trans who worked at Lucky Cheng's in NY. (Entire staff was Trans). Lucky Chengs was attached by secret tunnel to La Nouvelle Justine's which was my regular hangout but sometimes I didn't want french for dinner. I'd say Chengs' were DEFINITELY more serious than every Friday night and were certainly consuming both XX and XY products. P.S. The former Navy Seal Team 6 Kristin Beck *ISN'T* a Transsexual, people. No hormone shots. Still full carrot and potatoes in boxers. He's a Transvestite, just like Barbara Hudson mentions. (Which frankly is WAY more fantabulous a la Dr. Frankenfurter anyway). By all accounts he was an awesome special forces operator...but he's not Transgender and he can take off the dress any time and look like a dude. Well, frankly even in the dress....
Yeah nice hack job of my original statement. Do you have some organic brain damage that gives you problems with interpreting statements? Did you just complete NOT read my statements about how when P&G change their marketing tactics the entire industry tends to follow? Because it's literally the very thing I said just after you cut out the rest of what I said. And I'm not talking about just WHAT they're saying in this article. I'm talking about the advertising industry as a whole. Greater. Context. Matters.
But hey, you know maybe P&G won't get ride of their advertising. But while you're obsessed about what #FakeNews outlets like the WSJ puts out you're ignoring the reality that other people in the advertising industry, as well as better news outlets, are already reporting on this in much the same one. ZeroHedge, for instance, had an article about it about the yesterday.
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/
APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience by chihowa
ABP is insufficient as a solid hosts file does everything that APK reminds us about by fast turtle
I support APK's stand on the hosts file by Trax3001BBS
APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop by nasredin
APK solution STILL relevant by Thud457
you're right about hosts files by drinkypoo
No complaints from me, I like APK... Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free by aaaaaaargh!
APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good by Culture20
APK... Awesome to see he's still spreading the good word by Molochi
APK isn't wrong by cfalcon
APK
P.S.=> In addition to https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10927589&cid=54909025/ earlier also + 1,000's worldwide - there's no arguing w/ success... apk
Side effect of having to install ad, script and image blockers is that I can also block non-ads. Blac Chyna? *poof* you're GONE! Fat Celebrities in Bathing Suits? *ZAP* I like my celebs in great shape, thank you, that's your FUCKING JOB, AND YOU HAVE THE TIME AND MONEY. No excuses. I'm no hypocrite -- I'm in great shape but I do get fat every few years. I take no pictures and only look in the mirror to see the rate of my abs are coming back when I finally increase training and stop being a jelly-donut-a-holic. Hell, I don't even like touching women when I'm fat. Maybe cuz I won't do pictures, video or mirrors when i'm fat. Hey, for some of us its a performance art too. But anyway Mamma June *ZAP!* Currently I allow pics of Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Pelosi cuz they're squirming under Wassergate aka the Imran Awan House-IT-Pakistani-Spy-Ring-DNC-Hacking-Scandal. Which the NYT and WAPO will cover honestly once a gun is to their heads. (I do allow pics of Pierce Brosnan's fat wife of decades because you can't dis Pierce Brosnan for being an honourable man. And he's fucking cool.)
"Who the fuck buys a Coke because they saw a commercial for it? " People in the third world. Humans are purchasing status. True story -- if I put on a pair of $500 jeans people will say 'Nice Jeans.' They look exactly like $50 jeans save for the logo on the back. However if I perhaps sell products to Media/Tech/Ent and am required to sell to buyers who attend parties with A-Listers (not me, that rarely happens to me at this stage, but my clients often), then $500 jeans are part of the kit. It is rational though for the client to expect some signal that you understand them. Hence designer jeans. And people in bars and clubs telling me 'nice jeans'. Which I guess is really "You can buy me a drink and I'll fuck you if you have producer credits -- likely tonight, upstairs in your suite." And THAT is why I have film credits. There are enough c-list actresses and there's no better pickup than producer credits. The dreams of a little boy DO come true!!! Thank you Skinemax for all your inspiration.
Yes, I used the internet when it first became a :thing". It was created to enable communication and the sharing of technical knowledge. If you wanted SPAM you went to the store and bought it, it didn't exist on the internet. There were no popup ads. Yes it was crude back then by today's standards, but if I searched for a specific product, I did not get the first 10 results being from their competition.
We ignored the founding rules of the internet and we got what we deserve, a nearly useless full of static and noise communication link.
It was much easier to read a document on a DOS green screen than it is now because of all the popups, biases, gimmicks, and fake products that'll make your dick 20 inches long!
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
but but but its interwebs! Therefore PROFIT!
There are too many ads.
My brain has learned to blank them out. Even if I might have been interested in them I see nothing.
Spam calls have gotten so bad that now I answer the phone, "hello"... and then hang up immediately if it's not someone I have whitelisted or blacklisted already. So far ( crossing my fingers ), I haven't done it to a friend yet. Lol.
Too many ads means there are effectively NO ads.
Same with TV shows.
When you have 6 ads per hour- I used to see them. Even if I wasn't interested in them.
Now- I either go to streaming sources or pick up my smart phone and start playing a game or do something else but I don't process the ads at all. Sometimes I'll even wander off and forget about the show entirely.
I occasionally see pandora ads because they come up at stop signs. but I've never bought a product from them.
As ads exceed 10% of content- they become worthless if I'm the target (and I suspect most people).
Part of the reason for this is that everyone in the entertainment industry is overpaid now. So they have to sell too many ads to pay those salaries.
A word of warning to those folks- you are figuratively killing the golden goose here. You are literally destroying your customers interest in your products by using too many ads.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
When the US Patent and Trademark Office awarded TiVo the so-called time warping patent.
So it's Bruce Jenner until he gets 'the big chop'?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You have it backwards. You already have to be diagnosed as a transsexual before you're entitled to surgery. Which means it's Caitlyn from the moment of diagnosis.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So Frankenfurter was (at least possibly) a transexual afterall? She was a doctor...
What about transexuals that never intend to change their junk, just live as opposite sex? You could conceivably have a married trans couple have a kid, but the husband would carry the baby.
Unrelated...Did you wake up screaming? Like the Lithgow character in Garp?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I can't stand Rocky Horror Picture Show - it was crap when I first saw 15 minutes of it trying to see what the big deal was, and I'm sure it hasn't improved with age, so I neither know nor give a shit about Frankenturter.
There are plenty who only go on cross-sex hormones because of one or more of the following:
Unable to access surgery where they live
Cost
Medical conditions that make surgery inadvisable.
You seem to intentionally not want understand what gender dysphoria is, from your comments. Both your sexual preference (gy, lesbian, bi, straight, whatever) and the sex you identify as are solely controlled by the brain. And there are already trans couples where the man has had the baby - you're a bit behind the times.
As for "The world according to Garp", I only read the book, and from your question, it was better than the movie. Nobody wakes up screaming. If you ever had any sort of surgery you'd know better.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.