FireKrakouer
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest.
- Jul 5, 2011
- 15,321
- 23,149
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Hiring a feminazi idealogue to head marketing, what could possibly go wrong!$8 billion dollar loss
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hiring a feminazi idealogue to head marketing, what could possibly go wrong!$8 billion dollar loss
Every company has lost money in grooming products. But you know let's ignore that and spit out the same troll lines like always. Never change copyright infringement.Hiring a feminazi idealogue to head marketing, what could possibly go wrong!
8bn in losses and you're excusing it... lmao! Never seen an ultra-left message you didn't love eh?Every company has lost money in grooming products. But you know let's ignore that and spit out the same troll lines like always. Never change copyright infringement.
Read an article. It's accumulated losses from the downturn in men shaving. All stats back this up. Schick's owner had a similar problem.8bn in losses and you're excusing it... lmao! Never seen an ultra-left message you didn't love eh?
Cincinnati-based P&G, which operates in 80 countries, sells Gillette razors, gels and foams worldwide and said the writedown was due primarily to currency fluctuations - enduring strength in the U.S. economy in recent years has strengthened the dollar. The charge was also driven by more competition over the past three years and a shrinking market for blades and razors as consumers in developed markets shave less frequently. Net sales in the grooming business, which includes Gillette, have declined in 11 out of the last 12 quarters.P&G paid $57 billion in 2005 for Gillette, the world’s No.1 shaving brand that is more than a century old. But in the 2010s technology altered the way consumers purchased razors, and relaxed social norms prompted men to shave less often, according to a Euromonitor report. In the past 5 years, the U.S. men’s market for shaving products has shrunk by over 11%, the data firm said.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...es-8-billion-gillette-writedown-idUSKCN1UP1AD
Read an article. It's accumulated losses from the downturn in men shaving. All stats back this up. Schick's owner had a similar problem.
I see facts, all you see is a chance to troll with someone else's outdated material
Women don't buy razors for men. Men buy razors and use them until they're rusty and shredding our face. Then we go and get whatever brand it is we already got the handle for.
They're getting destroyed by cheaper shaving alternatives, like subscription clubs. This is an attempt to look modern.
Ah, you have FK on ignore. I don't blame you.Just the fifth post in the thread, little guys:
I don't have anyone on ignore. Ignore lists are for the weak.Ah, you have FK on ignore. I don't blame you.
But you do have very similar ideologies.
Hiring a feminazi idealogue to head marketing, what could possibly go wrong!$8 billion dollar loss
Cincinnati-based P&G, which operates in 80 countries, sells Gillette razors, gels and foams worldwide and said the writedown was due primarily to currency fluctuations - enduring strength in the U.S. economy in recent years has strengthened the dollar. The charge was also driven by more competition over the past three years and a shrinking market for blades and razors as consumers in developed markets shave less frequently. Net sales in the grooming business, which includes Gillette, have declined in 11 out of the last 12 quarters.P&G paid $57 billion in 2005 for Gillette, the world’s No.1 shaving brand that is more than a century old. But in the 2010s technology altered the way consumers purchased razors, and relaxed social norms prompted men to shave less often, according to a Euromonitor report. In the past 5 years, the U.S. men’s market for shaving products has shrunk by over 11%, the data firm said.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...es-8-billion-gillette-writedown-idUSKCN1UP1AD
What is wrong with what he said? They have trashed their brand with a large proportion of the populace in order to play politics, and it didn't reverse their decline.How'd you miss that?
Because he is blaming the entire loss on it. In fact on one particular woman.What is wrong with what he said? They have trashed their brand with a large proportion of the populace in order to play politics, and it didn't reverse their decline.
Where did he do that?Because he is blaming the entire loss on it. In fact on one particular woman.
Top of this page.Where did he do that?
I read it, and don't interpret it the same way you do.Top of this page.
And in the quote you replied to where I asked how you missed it.
Yeah you do.I read it, and don't interpret it the same way you do.
Now, all the people who said this was good marketing, where are they?
Yeah you do.
I don't know where they are. Do you know if it increased the loss or decreased the loss?
The fragility of some men’s masculinity has been proven.
The fragility of some men’s masculinity has been proven.
the old calling other men weak to prove you’re a strong progressive man thingThe fragility of some men’s masculinity has been proven.
I'm regularly impressed by how stupid you lot are.8bn in losses and you're excusing it... lmao! Never seen an ultra-left message you didn't love eh?
I'm impressed that you're too stupid to work out the connection between the two. If your experiencing current reduced demand and thus reduced revenue/profitability in your industry, it is not wise to go out and attack a majority of your consumer base and put them off getting your stuff.I'm regularly impressed by how stupid you lot are.
It was a write down by the parent company, it has zero to do with the ad. Dollar shavers club has smashed their bottom line regardless.
That was the position taken on the first page of the thread.I'm regularly impressed by how stupid you lot are.
It was a write down by the parent company, it has zero to do with the ad. Dollar shavers club has smashed their bottom line regardless.