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.
Ads on the Internet make me less likely to buy a company's products. If I go you Youtube to watch a video, and Foobar, Inc forces me to sit through five seconds of their stupid ad before I can watch the video I want to watch, then I become pissed off at Foobar, Inc, and remember that next time I go shopping.
The good news is that stories like this show we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the whole Internet advertising scam.
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.
Ads on the Internet make me less likely to buy a company's products.
The ads I'm seeing online are mainly for products I have already bought.
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.)
I have occasionally seen a product advertised in print media that I was interested in buying, and maybe once or twice on television. On the Internet, not so much. Internet advertising tends to be 99.99% worthless scam bullshit.
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).
It has nothing to do with "shady" site placement and everything to do with the fact digital advertising simply by and large doesn't work. Seems like YouTube and Spotify, sites with a captive user, are the only ones that can even get their ads noticed (albeit marginally) with most other ads being completely ignored. Though sometimes they really try and force you to look at an ad (covers the page, countdown to proceed) which then causes people to find active ways to remove them from their online experience.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
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.
That too. 'Targetting' advertising basically just means showing me ads for things I already own.
Any company paying for this crap has far more money than sense.
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.
get a safety razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... best move you can make.. blades are easily replacable and super-cheap. I picked up 100 for around $20 like 3 years ago and still have some left....
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.
I concur. Exactly what I did.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
This! I was about to post similar, but you beat me to it. After initial cost of handle, brush and bowl, I spend less per year to shave than most people spend in a month. Hell, I spend less per year to shave than most people spend on saving cream alone in a month and I get a better shave and get to choose the scent of my soap.
Don't believe the marketing hype. No one needs more than one blade, and that chemical concoction you use as a "cream" is not only a wast of money, it's not good for your face either.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
which then causes people to find active ways to remove them from their online experience
Sometimes by avoiding the offending site completely. I've seen plenty of sites that tried blocking ads, interstitials or really annoying flashing / moving stuff to grab your attention, only to remove those a little while later. Presumably because the readership moved on instead of having their retinas injured and their intelligence insulted.
Staying on topic: I'd really like to see some hard numbers on how effective targeted advertising really is. You know, the kind of advertising made possible by our privacy being violated, by companies that pay insane sums for anything that can deliver that data. The era of the eyeballs (end of last century) is back with a vengeance, with the same insane sums being paid for companies having many customers that can be mined but otherwise offer no tangible monetary benefit. All that money, all that effort to "better understand our customers", so that they can be offered "a better experience" through targeted ads. Somehow I think it's still not living up to expectations. And maybe P&G agree.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Slashdot has a lot of click friendly folks. Some even have money to spend.
Are you daft? Proctor and Gamble and PG&E are not the same company. Good Lord.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
They set the price where the income is maximized.
Sure, but they also need to decide how much to spend on ads and promoting their brand, then that cost has to be incorporated into the price. If a Gillette razor costs $10 and an Equate razor costs $5, you can't expect people to pay the difference based on quality, since the products are basically identical, so you have to run advertisements to make people think your product is better or more prestigious. It is surprising how well this works. When an ad runs, very few people think "If I buy that product, I am paying for that ad".
If only i found out about the safety razor earlier in life.. but at lesat the days of spending $20 for 5 "cartridges" which only last a few weeks are long gone. A single safety razor blade easily lasts a month since they have two sides and at $20 for a HUNDRED....(been using a safety razor for 10 years now).
anyone who is buying any "multiple blade" heads is just throwing money away. Seems every few years they bring out their latest "N" blade head and pitch how much better it is then the N-1 blade head.. "the latest 6 blade head is twice as effective as our old 5 blade model"... I find my single blade model is much easier to use and it never jams up and becomes garbage, not because it is dull, but becaues it is plugged up.
nonsense.
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?
The good news is that stories like this show we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the whole Internet advertising scam.
Have you considered implications of this statement? Advertising right now keeps the lights on. Without it, the days of Free Content are over.
There was a ton of free content on the Internet before advertising. The main result of advertising has been to flood the Internet with useless sites that exist solely to make money from advertising.
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.
I'm betting they are maximizing for profit, not income - at least in the long term.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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.
Any company paying for this crap has far more money than sense.
Welcome to the world of advertising...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You would be amazed at the amount of hypochondriacs in the world. Getting them to check in with their doc and insist on wanting medication X works as a method for spamming docs with the brand awareness, which in turn bumps prescriptions.
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.
There was a ton of free content on the Internet before advertising. The main result of advertising has been to flood the Internet with useless sites that exist solely to make money from advertising.
Indeed. Do a search for anything these days, and you get multiple hits for ad-financed copypasta before you get any real meat. /., for cripes sake. We thought it was bad when the amount of original content went down and it became more of a news aggregator, but now it is at rock bottom as yet another reblogging site. A bad one at that, with attributions that often cannot even be followed.
And the quality goes down. Look at
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?
I've always tried to avoid ads as much as possible, throughout my life as far back as I can remember. If I Google for a Product I even scroll down below the 'ad' for the manufacturer and click on the straight google link lower down. Before the internet, I'd turn off the TV, go do something else etc. when the ads came on and avoid channels with excessive ad breaks (I live in Australia now and simply avoid the commercial channels altogether).
As others have also said, I do my own research for most of what I buy. I'm sure that over the years advertising has had a sublte effect on my brand perception, but I think it is limited and I will put personal experience way above any received info, especially from advertising.
So far as I am concerned the quicker that internet advertising dies the better. 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. Sort of of like a giant Wikipedia with everyone formatting stuff however they liked and without the hideous tortuous English Wikipedia forces on writers. Ah, nostalgia.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
It has nothing to do with "shady" site placement and everything to do with the fact digital advertising simply by and large doesn't work. Seems like YouTube and Spotify, sites with a captive user, are the only ones that can even get their ads noticed (albeit marginally) with most other ads being completely ignored. Though sometimes they really try and force you to look at an ad (covers the page, countdown to proceed) which then causes people to find active ways to remove them from their online experience.
Oh, digital advertising works. When booking.com showed me an ad not that long ago saying that the price of a guest house I had checked out a couple of days earlier had gone down I booked a room for three days. That ad worked because it was correctly targeted. Youtube on the other hand can't seem to get it right despite all the brainpower of all those aspiring Nobel laureates and alpha type power-management types they have collected together on their campus. The only correctly targeted ad I've seen on YouTube for a long time is a 5 second Game of Thrones teaser, which is incidentally the first YouTube ad I've seen whose makers had picked up on the simple and obvious fact any content beyond 5 seconds in a YouTube ad is wasted and I don't think YouTube/AdSense finally got their ad targeting right, they just finally got lucky with their indiscriminate carpet bombing. The problem with digital/online ads is that in order to be effective they should not appear on objectionable sites and they should be interesting to the viewer, otherwise people just get irritated. That requires (a) categorising sites into objectionable and non-objectionable sites which irks people because inevitably something gets mis-classified in somebody's opinion and (b) in order to show each site visitor something he/she finds interesting you need to engage in Orwellian tracking of that user's activity which people object to even more than having their website mis-classified as objectionable. It's kind of a catch-22...
Put another aloe strip on that fucker, too. That's right. Five blades, two strips, and make the second one lather. You heard me—the second strip lathers. It's a whole new way to think about shaving. Don't question it. Don't say a word. Just key the music, and call the chorus girls, because we're on the edge—the razor's edge—and I feel like dancing.
http://www.theonion.com/blogpo...
The ads I'm seeing online are mainly for products I have already bought.
Or things that I've looked at, but decided I didn't want.
Noishkel wrote:
From the article (if only people read before commenting):
The very next sentence though:
I opted for a beard. Quick trim once a week, operating costs close to zero and the beard trimmer is useful for eyebrows and tidying up the back of the head too so even the capex isn't fully incurred by the beard.
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.
The good news is that stories like this show we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the whole Internet advertising scam.
Be careful what you wish fo.... {Please subscribe for $9.90/month to read the rest of this comment}
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?
how is a "safety razor" designed not to cut you dangerous? Maybe you are thinking "straight razor" by chance?
I've tried several electric shavers, they take FOREVER and by the time i pass over the area over and over again it is raw. Single blade safety razor is my personal preference..
i was looking for that article when this thread was started, but thought it came from straight dope and couldnt locate it.. thanks for the post!
That too. 'Targetting' advertising basically just means showing me ads for things I already own.
There are two main kinds of ads, although an ad can be more than one thing at a time. There are ads designed to make you feel bad that you don't have something, and there are ads designed to make you good because you do have something, and the company that made it would appreciate it very much if you were to go buy more things from them, and they certainly wouldn't mind if you felt good enough about your purchase to tell other people about it.
Unfortunately, plenty of people have simply accepted advertisements as part of life, and they don't have the innate revulsion for the whole concept that some of us have.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There was a ton of free content on the Internet before advertising.
I agree, but...
The main result of advertising has been to flood the Internet with useless sites that exist solely to make money from advertising.
...most of the content I consume by volume (of bytes) has been financed in whole or in part by advertising. I don't think it's particularly accurate to suggest that the Romans never did anything for us.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
What makes you think that non-digital advertising works either? I suspect neither is particularly effective but that digital ads are actually measurable.
They point at fraud in digital, but we also know that Neilson numbers and print circulation numbers are flawed. Did users really stay the follow-up to a popular show, or did they simply forget to indicate they had stopped watching?
In general, I think advertising functions like a virus- the more you're exposed to it the less effective the tactics they use become.
I see mostly ads for things I have no interest in e.g. I watch videos about sports cars but get ads for pickup trucks.
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.
which is incidentally the first YouTube ad I've seen whose makers had picked up on the simple and obvious fact any content beyond 5 seconds in a YouTube ad is wasted
This is the one that really amazes me. You can skip the ad after 5 seconds, so you have 5 seconds to convince me not to (or, at least, to try to make me aware of your brand). So many YouTube ads spend the first 5 seconds on some build effect so that by the time I hit 'skip ad' I have no idea what company or product is being advertised.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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!
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.
Agreed that saturation points are being hit. Such as Twitter showing zero subscriber growth last quarter. Other example is Adblockers -- old tech for the geek, sure, but now consumers demand it. The MOST valuable advertising is the 'other consumers bought these items...' arrays when shopping at AMZN etc or even the wider matching arrays from EBAY. Further integrated product placement in films is a good idea. Hell, make half the cyberpunk look like Blade Runner. That means more cyberpunk and its what The Ginza and TimesSQ looks like anyway.
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.)
but but but its interwebs! Therefore PROFIT!
Only once have I bought something advertised on the web where I wasn't looking for something to buy...Great Lakes 3D Wood Map.
I'm convinced that the only substantial success of advertising is in getting companies to pay for advertising. There may be some marginal benefit for entirely unknown brands, but there's no way that companies get $100bn of value out of it, in the US alone.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
get a safety razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... best move you can make.. blades are easily replacable and super-cheap. I picked up 100 for around $20 like 3 years ago and still have some left....
I picked up a ten years supply for the equivalent of $50. I used to use a straight razor, but those things require too much maintenance. My safety double-edged razor cost $5 in the 90s, and I'm still using it.
The best part is that the single-bladed (per side) means that only a single edge goes across my face. Having two edges placed next to each other means that the first blade pulls the follicle out a little while the second blade cuts it. This results in the hair actually being *lower* than the surface of the skin, resulting in in-grown hairs.
The single-edge shave results in a smoother face over time.
So, not only is it cheaper but it is better as well.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Car buyers read the car advertising corresponding to the model of at they own. My wife buys washing machine soap based on the coupons she gets. Most of P&G products have stiff competition. Similar products rarely differ by more than a few cents.
Yep. Go into that overseas factory, stack those jobs up on pallets, secure them in shrink wrap, load the pallets into containers, load 'em onto cargo ships, sail them across the sea, unload those containers, transport them to empty factories, unload the jobs into those factories, and put Amurricans back to work,
Yes, I know the "bringing those jobs back to the US" is a metaphor. A clueless one, but very popular.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
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.
There are only two kinds of ads for me: the ones I don't want to see, and the ones I hate to see.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
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.