vibrating razors for women

[Gabriel]

LINK

In a product category where women's products generally are priced higher than men's -- on the assumption women will pay more for personal care --

Hey dumb @#$@# haven't you heard, supply and demand cause prices, not assumptions. Economics 101, first or second day of class. Holy crap people are dumb.

Is it possible for women not to be victims at all times, jesus. Now it is all about price equality.

Hello. Mcfly. People are not equal. For the most part there is nothing that is equal to anything else. The basic assumptions of communism is bs.

[mr niceguy]

What in the article contradicts basic economics? What in Gillette's marketing strategy contradicts basic economics?

It's as simple as you say it is. Women DO tend to be willing to spend more than men on toiletries. So the assumption is correct; that's why it drives pricing. It's also a fact that attention-getting gimmicks, such as "price parity" in this case, promote sales.

Women "are not going to pay more for the sake of paying more. There has to be something in it for them," says Denise Fedewa, co-founder of Leo Burnett USA's LeoShe unit, which specializes in marketing to women.

Fedewa's statement is also true. The more there is "something in it for them", the more they will pay.

The article says that Gillette is also lowering the price of the comparable men's product. Kudos to them. May they be as successful as Wal-Mart in marketplace competition.

It has nothing to do with women being victims.

Today seems to be a day for overreacting and imagining nonexistent media bias on standyourground.

[Gabriel]

We expect it (the pulsing technology) to have similar positive impact on Venus

 :oops:

That's funny.

[Gabriel]

What in the article contradicts basic economics? What in Gillette's marketing strategy contradicts basic economics?

I just read the release that generated that article. Funny, no where in there does it say anything about price equality with men, apprently the whole price equality story idea is something USA today came up entirely on their on and ran with it.  

You were saying something about media bias? But I digress. I am not here to debate those that are unconvincable, those who are not intellectually honest.  I only engage those trolls for a foil for any point I'm making to other readers. In this example, MNG arguing that it was gillette and not USA that came with this story, when a look alittle deeper showed where the story came from.

The feminists at USA, (like the one mentioned in the article  Denise Fedewa, co-founder of Leo Burnett USA's LeoShe unit, which specializes in marketing to women) bitter that men taking better care of their products and not having to buy a new one all the time causes men's products to last longer, and supply and demand causes mens prices to be lower, came up with story and are portraying women as victims of price discrimination.

Those at USA were just introducing this idea, that women are discriminated against by higher prices. Next thing we'll hear is a call for women's clothing price parity with men's clothing.

(Yawn) Stally, he doesn't believe what he writes, (s)he writes to confuse, to push his/her agenda.

The good news is that gillette is creating awareness for prostate cancer and probably will be giving $5 million if Dale Earnhardt, Jr has anything to say about it. Suddenly, I don't mind paying alittle extra for those mach 3 blades.

[mr niceguy]

The USA Today article you posted initially says this: Gillette achieved price parity by setting a lower price point for the Venus than the M3Power, launched last spring with a suggested retail price of $14.99, then cutting the price of the men's razor (effective next month). The price cut was achieved in part by packaging both models as a razor, a carrying case and one refill, dropping one extra refill from the M3Power package.

"Our testing indicated that there is an upside potential to penetrate more razors at a slightly reduced price," Hoffman says.

It would be logical to conclude from that (or not) that the "price parity" concept was a deliberate idea on the part of Gillette, especially since the quote from Hoffman (a Gillette bigwig) immediately follows the paragraph. The author doesn't make it entirely clear. But actually it is irrelevant to me whether Gillette set out to achieve price parity deliberately or whether it just happened that way accidentally.

I couldn't tell from your initial post whether you were ranting against the article's author, Gillette, or Fedewa, or some combination thereof, so I was sort of defending all three. Looks like you were ranting against two of the three. Personally it doesn't bother me if the author wants price parity (which she doesn't actually come out and say) or not. What would bother me would be if she wrote something that were untrue, which, as far as I can tell, she didn't. Nor did she refer to women as victims as you implied.

I still don't know what Gillette said in its prior release, because your link doesn't work. I also didn't know it was my responsibility to do extensive independent research on Gillette's marketing strategies before responding to your initial post and link.

So to sum up: Yay Gillette, Yay USA Today, YAY quoted marketing expert, BOO Gabriel!

[The Gonzman]

Price parity is all bullshit and more feminist inspired "women as victims" propaganda, all duly parroted by their media lapdogs and femboy apologists.

I go into a barbershop, I want a trim, I'm in and out of the chair in 15 minutes.  I pay $7.

Woman goes in, wants a shampoo, a conditioning tratment, a creme rinse, hot oil, dr, roll and set, cut - the works - they pay $37, as they are in the chair fopr an hour and a half.

I get my suit drycleaned and pressed - simple, straightforward, no fuss.  $35

SHE gets her dress drycleaned, and special care must be taken on the sequins, the chiffon, a spot removed here, special this, special that - she pays $90.

All this is right, fair, and proper

My razor is a no frills model, blade and handle.  It takes me 5 minutes to shave in the morning, I've been doing it for 30 years.  I don't need ergonomics, comfort handles, some pretty design, designer colors, aloe strips, or other crap.

If she wants some engineered decorated model with a fucking vibrator in it so she can rub one out in the tub as she shaves, she jolly well should pay extra - why the fuck should I subsidize female hedonism?

[The Biscuit Queen]

I don't think the article had anything to do with woman being victims. Women DO pay more for female products than men pay for men's products, but for a reason. Men tend to want the minimum that will work. An 8 pak of socks, a 5 pak of underwear, the same white briefs with the blue bands they have bought since college. Women buy one at a time. $3 a pair sounds fine, but men can get 5 pair for $8. It is packaged differently, so the disparity is not apparent.

With hair products, men tend to have short hair, so just buy basic cheap shampoo. Many women have long hair, so must use conditioner or their hair gets ugly. I can't even comb mine without using conditioner or I pull out a huge wad of hair. I cannot use cheap conditioner, it doesn't work. When I used to get my hair cut, I would be charged more at a salon, even though I didn't get all the perks. I stopped cutting my hair.

***HOWEVER***

Women want to look nice in their underwear, so take the extra effort and money to assure they get what will look nice. It is their choice. Women want their hair long and styled, so pay more to maintain it. It is all choice. Women pay more for a designer brand of jeans where men are fine with Levi's. I buy men's socks because they are cheaper.

Notice they did not achieve parity with prices because they took out part of what made up the price of the men's razor in order to lower the price. I imagine that if you look women still are paying more. But only because their vanity dictates it. That is a personal problem, not discrimination.

Sometimes things are unequal for a reason.

[Gabriel]

Women want to look nice in their underwear, so take the extra effort and money to assure they get what will look nice.

Funny, for the most part, I never notice.  But the women usually will either point it out to me, or bitch at me for not noticing.

[Alpha Male]

Women want to look nice in their underwear, so take the extra effort and money to assure they get what will look nice.

Funny, for the most part, I never notice.  But the women usually will either point it out to me, or bitch at me for not noticing.

:laugh2: Hell! They're never on that long anyway. What do I care what they look like?

Well - as long as they are clean. I might worry if they weren't clean.