Everything advertised on social media is overpriced junk

Post by WaitWhatHuh » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 10:30 PM UTC

chasebank wrote: post #52

flappyeagle wrote: post #18

My feeling throughout reading the article is best summed up as "Y U mad bro?" He harps on an "anti-woke" razor company that tries to market themselves as an alternative to Gillette and Harry's — the big point is "they spend 800k/month on marketing, so it drives up the cost of the razors". Does he know how much Gillette spends (saved you a search: 600M/year)? How do they fund that I wonder? He cites a study that says…

You’ve clearly never worked in direct response marketing. The cost of customer acquisition vs lifetime value of a customer is terrible compared to traditional retail. In 2007, you could print money. In 2023, you’re most likely barely breaking even buying digital ads. The OPs thesis is quite correct. I’ve been in the space for 14 years and have tens of millions, if not hundreds, in DR adspend across multiple platforms…

Post by alex7734 » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 10:34 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #115

coffeebeqn wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s happening on every e-commerce platform because it’s profitable. Etsy and Walmart for example have the exact same random cheaply manufactured Chinese goods on there

No need for the "e." By and large, it happens everywhere. You can try to blame capitalism, but that feels like a trap. My view is that "high quality" is largely an illusion. And you start changing your view of it as you get older.

Post by Clubber » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 10:52 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #118

Clubber wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Give me one example when this approach succeeded, without any corresponding legislation I think he's describing when the market dethrones an entrenched player without legislation. This happens quite often. Cable companies come to mind. Kodak, Novell, Sun Microsystems, etc. Like he said, regulation today serves the wealthiest companies, because startups, the ones that do the dethroning, have extra costs that are more…

my understanding is that his example referred to consumers boycotting a business. I could not find a successful example. When a business gets replaced by a conpetitor, that's a diffetent mechanism

Post by z3t4 » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 11:10 PM UTC

OldGuyInTheClub wrote: post #154

taeric wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd forego the $300 ones. But I'd also recommend 3 pairs of $60ish shoes. Wear a different one each day. And make sure to get at least 4 miles of walking in. Anything less and it likely isn't the shoes making you uncomfortable.

I have to walk a lot at work. Don't know about 4 miles but I am not sitting at a desk. Rockports used to make great shoes that fit without break-in, were suitable for daily use and in the workplace, and that didn't break the bank. Can't find anything in that style anymore so I have to go with so-called athletic shoes that come in a black finish.

Post by lozenge » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 11:20 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #24

pibechorro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People like slapping laws on issues when the outcome is usually higher costs in the form of never shrinking burocrazys, little to no actual enforcement (unless you are rich or connected) and the red tape involved in compliance will likely make it worse. The answer is by adopting different behavior on our end. Add blockers avoiding services litterer in ads (its why i no longer use Instagram, google search, etc)

> The answer is by adopting different behavior on our end. This tactic has not succeeded even once since written records began. Did snake oil salesmen disappear because we ran out of gullible people? Give me one example when this approach succeeded, without any corresponding legislation