stevenpiziks: (Default)
I use ad blockers on my web browser.  Web sites hate this, of course.  I'm not seeing their carefully-placed advertisements with bouncing boobs that want me to order pizza or waggling bikini butts that demand I buy Smucker's or tumbling titties that tell me to get Tonka Trucks.  This makes me happy.

But some sites have started taking notice.  At certain sites, I'll be there for a few seconds and suddenly the screen switches to a blank screen surrounding a passive-aggressive plea.  "We notice you use an ad blocker. We wouldn't DREAM of telling you not to use one. Totally not. But maybe if you rethink it, we'll let you look at our site." 

There are workarounds to this.  I just reload the site and hit the STOP function before the reload finishes, which usually halts their detection software.  Other times I just select the entire page quickly and paste it into a blank document so I can read what I want.  One thing I don't do is shut off my ad blocker.

I don't object to the concept of advertising on-line--or anywhere else, for that matter.  Someone has to pay for all this "free" content, and there are goods and services that I want to become aware of.  I wouldn't know about the Wonder Woman movie, for example, without advertising.  However, nearly all advertising is sexist, racist, intrusive, homophobic, heterocentrist, or manipulative.  And so I do my best to cut it out of my life.

I become unhappy that I've been taught since I was a child that I'm supposed to go cuckoo for Coco Puffs, that Eggo waffles, McDonald's fries, Cookie Crisp cereal, and Lucky Charms are so delicious I need to steal them, that Ford trucks are tough as a ram (whatever that means), or that big-titted women will want to blow me if I drink Coor.  Internet ads are even worse than usual.  So I avoid them.

If advertisers want me to look at their ads, they should make their ads tasteful and watchable.  Since they don't, I will continue to block them.
stevenpiziks: (Outdoors)
Stores routinely charge more for products marketed to women than the same product marketed to men, especially if it's a bath or beauty product.  Shampoo, conditioner, soap, body wash--if it's pink, the price goes up.

Check this out. The Kroger where I shop has its Health and Beauty Aids section dividied into FOR HIM and FOR HER with little signs, as in "HAIR CARE for him" and "HAIR CARE for her" or "SKIN CARE for him" and "SKIN CARE for her."  They also have separate "SHAVING for him" and "SHAVING for her" sections.  In it are a variety of razors, including Kroger store brand razors.  These were in the "for her" section:

And these were in the "for him" section:

A $2.00 difference.  They're the same product with a slightly different shape.  Apparently, a different shape requires a $2 markup.

The body wash marketed for men cost about 2/3 the price of the body wash for women.  Same brand, same ingredients, but a higher price because the bottle was a different shape and was a soft beige instead of battleship gray.  (I didn't take photos.)

Do people fall for this?  Do they refuse to look at the other side of the aisle and end up paying more for exactly the same product?  I'm guessing they must, otherwise the company and the store wouldn't do it.

My advice?  Stop it!  A razor is a razor.  Shampoo is shampoo.  Soap is soap.  Color is meaningless.  Pink, blue, gray, orange--who cares?  Comparison shop.  Don't let them rip you off.  And the stores need to stop dividing us by gender.


stevenpiziks: (Default)

September 2017

3 456789
10 1112 1314 15 16
171819 20212223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 03:07 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios