There were several brands of shampoo in my childhood that are long gone: Halo, Drene, Finesse, Luster-Crème (I can still remember the radio jingles for Halo and Luster-Crème).
Of course a lot of consumer products come and go. Presumably they disappear from the market if they were not successful. But sometimes a brand that was big can also disappear: In my childhood there was a toothpaste called Ipana that I am sure was one of the top sellers, and it disappeared, too. It must have finally had a lot of its sales gobbled up by another brand.
Not too many consumer product names last a really long time, like Coca-Cola, which goes back to the nineteenth century, or Tide detergent, which I think goes back to around World War II. (Synthetic detergents were given their original impetus by the war, which made some products like soap scarce—and there's a similar story with margarine as originally a substitute for butter, scarce in wartime. A few of the early margarine brands are still around.)
Some consumer names can still be seen but they're not the original companies. That's true of names like RCA. The original company, Radio Corporation of America, at one point was bought by the French firm Thomson. Today if you see an RCA-branded product it's probably has little to do with the original company; and similarly for a number of other names, particularly those in consumer electronics or appliances, like Crosley—a very old name that made refrigerators, some great, sought-after radios, etc. The rights to a name can be sold and bought so that the modern-day use of the name is by some company not having any direct descent from the original one.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, February 27, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Drug Ads on TV
Unless you are very young you can probably remember a time before we had TV commercials for prescription drugs. Personally I wish we could go back to those good old days.
I think these commercials are a bad thing. I'll bet doctors hate them, because lots of patients are coming in to their offices, virtually demanding to be given this or that drug that they saw advertised on TV. Certainly it takes time and, probably, patience on the part of the doctor if s/he does not feel the drug is appropriate for the patient.
Also, it's always the brand-name drugs (as opposed to generics) that are advertised on TV. These sometimes are very expensive. Example: I happen to know that one of the drugs for rheumatoid arthritis that is advertised on TV costs about $1000 per month.
So, these ads, along with their outcome of patients demanding the brand-name drugs, mean more money for the drug companies. More money for the pharmacies. More money for the TV stations. And probably more nuisance for doctors.
The advertising rightly should be directed toward the doctors, and of course it is, with ads in journals that doctors read plus "representatives" (i.e., salesmen) making calls on doctors in their offices. I am sure that, even without patients coming in and requesting them, doctors are already well aware of any drug that means big money for its manufacturer.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
I think these commercials are a bad thing. I'll bet doctors hate them, because lots of patients are coming in to their offices, virtually demanding to be given this or that drug that they saw advertised on TV. Certainly it takes time and, probably, patience on the part of the doctor if s/he does not feel the drug is appropriate for the patient.
Also, it's always the brand-name drugs (as opposed to generics) that are advertised on TV. These sometimes are very expensive. Example: I happen to know that one of the drugs for rheumatoid arthritis that is advertised on TV costs about $1000 per month.
So, these ads, along with their outcome of patients demanding the brand-name drugs, mean more money for the drug companies. More money for the pharmacies. More money for the TV stations. And probably more nuisance for doctors.
The advertising rightly should be directed toward the doctors, and of course it is, with ads in journals that doctors read plus "representatives" (i.e., salesmen) making calls on doctors in their offices. I am sure that, even without patients coming in and requesting them, doctors are already well aware of any drug that means big money for its manufacturer.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy
My saying this will probably make little change in the world, but here goes:
The current fashion among young men to wear little chin beards (which they erroneously call "goatees") is unbecoming. I'd go so far as to say that it's unbecoming on at least 90 percent of the guys who wear it. I wonder if their girl friends like and encourage this hair.
And on men with dark coloration, a lot of facial hair can give them a sinister look. Well, maybe that's what they're shooting for. To me they can look downright scary and like hoodlums.
Anyway, fashions and trends come and go. I can't wait for this fashion to pass.
The current fashion among young men to wear little chin beards (which they erroneously call "goatees") is unbecoming. I'd go so far as to say that it's unbecoming on at least 90 percent of the guys who wear it. I wonder if their girl friends like and encourage this hair.
And on men with dark coloration, a lot of facial hair can give them a sinister look. Well, maybe that's what they're shooting for. To me they can look downright scary and like hoodlums.
Anyway, fashions and trends come and go. I can't wait for this fashion to pass.
Misconceptions, and What People Do or Don't Believe
Here are some excerpts from, as I believe, a Motley Fool article I found online.
And, as I read comments on Huffington Post, I see that what Rooney says is very true: People tend to just flat-out refuse to believe something when it contradicts what they already believe or want to believe.
Misconception No. 1: Most of what Americans spend their money on is made in China.
Fact: Just 2.7% of personal consumption expenditures go to Chinese-made goods and services. 88.5% of U.S. consumer spending is on American-made goods and services.
Misconception No. 2: We owe most of our debt to China.
Fact: China owns 7.6% of U.S. government debt outstanding.
Misconception No. 3: We get most of our oil from the Middle East.
Fact: Just 9.8% of oil consumed in the U.S. comes from the Middle East.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe," said Andy Rooney.
And, as I read comments on Huffington Post, I see that what Rooney says is very true: People tend to just flat-out refuse to believe something when it contradicts what they already believe or want to believe.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
What's Wrong in the US--A Serious Problem
I have been hearing over and over that a major problem in the US concerns "fiscal" problems, notably the budget deficit. And anyone commenting on that also notes the lack of adequate attention to the problem by the government. And then they go on to point out the lack of political action, leadership, vision, and so forth.
I don't know if this is typical across the whole country, but in this area (Chicago), the last Congressional election sent to Congress maybe some half-dozen young, new, Conservative Representatives. Many or all of these are young, male, and Tea Party–leaning or –backed.
The main enterprise or objective of these Representatives has been, not to do anything constructive, but to obstruct. I hesitate to blame youth. I will blame lack of wisdom, and putting ideology before anything else, including the welfare and needs of the country as a whole.
Of course any criticism of who our legislators are must peer behind the curtain and look at who elected them. Of course the answer is, The voters. In the days in which the new nation of The United States was being set up, some of the Founding Fathers were very skeptical of democracy—because they had limited faith in the wisdom or intelligence of the voters. Now, nearly 250 years later, I think it's becoming more and more clear that maybe those voices were right. Voters are too easily seduced by things like a pretty face, a loud voice, simplistic slogans, and empty promises of positive change.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
I don't know if this is typical across the whole country, but in this area (Chicago), the last Congressional election sent to Congress maybe some half-dozen young, new, Conservative Representatives. Many or all of these are young, male, and Tea Party–leaning or –backed.
The main enterprise or objective of these Representatives has been, not to do anything constructive, but to obstruct. I hesitate to blame youth. I will blame lack of wisdom, and putting ideology before anything else, including the welfare and needs of the country as a whole.
Of course any criticism of who our legislators are must peer behind the curtain and look at who elected them. Of course the answer is, The voters. In the days in which the new nation of The United States was being set up, some of the Founding Fathers were very skeptical of democracy—because they had limited faith in the wisdom or intelligence of the voters. Now, nearly 250 years later, I think it's becoming more and more clear that maybe those voices were right. Voters are too easily seduced by things like a pretty face, a loud voice, simplistic slogans, and empty promises of positive change.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Believe Statistics, or Believe That Guy You Know?
When someone who smokes is confronted with statistics that show the harm of smoking—for example, the increased rate of lung cancer among smokers—they are likely to say something like, "My grandfather smoked four packs a day, from the age of 9 until he died, and he lived to be 101!"
Of course it's not valid or logical to point to one case, when the correlation between smoking and increased risk of cancer depends on looking at a large population—thousands or tens of thousands of people who smoke. That is what the scientists and researchers who study things like that do. It's called epidemiology.
Another example: A man will ask his neighbor, "How do you like your Rodeo BroncBuster [car or SUV]?" Again, he's going to look at one instance rather than taking advantage of statistics on owner satisfaction which are available from several sources: JD Power, Consumer Reports, and so forth.
People seem to prefer the anecdotal and the familiar or close-by. Somehow, the experience of your neighbor, your brother-in-law, etc., carries more weight or impresses you more. Maybe we just trust people we know more than someone's numbers. Statistics are cold, distant, impersonal. You want someone in the flesh, standing right there, to tell you—not in numbers but in language, about his experience.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Of course it's not valid or logical to point to one case, when the correlation between smoking and increased risk of cancer depends on looking at a large population—thousands or tens of thousands of people who smoke. That is what the scientists and researchers who study things like that do. It's called epidemiology.
Another example: A man will ask his neighbor, "How do you like your Rodeo BroncBuster [car or SUV]?" Again, he's going to look at one instance rather than taking advantage of statistics on owner satisfaction which are available from several sources: JD Power, Consumer Reports, and so forth.
People seem to prefer the anecdotal and the familiar or close-by. Somehow, the experience of your neighbor, your brother-in-law, etc., carries more weight or impresses you more. Maybe we just trust people we know more than someone's numbers. Statistics are cold, distant, impersonal. You want someone in the flesh, standing right there, to tell you—not in numbers but in language, about his experience.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Yet Another Issue to Divide Americans
There is a transportation-funding bill before the US Congress. US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has called it "the worst transportation bill in 35 years." (LaHood, it should be pointed out, served in the previous administration of President George W. Bush and thus was not originally an Obama appointee, and is in fact a Republican.)
A Republican spokesman defends the bill as providing for improved roads and bridges, and also implies that it will provide jobs and lower the cost of gasoline.
US roads and bridges are deteriorating and need improvements, but the bill will cut funding for urban mass transit in cities like New York and Chicago.
Thus the bill pits the big cities against the suburbs and rural areas—the mass transit riders and the car owners. This should not be surprising and might even be a deliberate intent of the bill, because the cities have tended to be liberal and Democratic, while rural and suburban areas are more often Republican. Thus the Republicans, who currently control Congress, are aiding those they consider their supporters and penalizing those they feel would most likely oppose them in any election.
The US is becoming proverbially polarized, into Red and Blue states. Now one more divisive and polarizing issue has been found.
Update, February 9, 2012.
I have been corrected in a comment (which see): Transportation Secretary LaHood was in fact appointed by Obama.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
A Republican spokesman defends the bill as providing for improved roads and bridges, and also implies that it will provide jobs and lower the cost of gasoline.
US roads and bridges are deteriorating and need improvements, but the bill will cut funding for urban mass transit in cities like New York and Chicago.
Thus the bill pits the big cities against the suburbs and rural areas—the mass transit riders and the car owners. This should not be surprising and might even be a deliberate intent of the bill, because the cities have tended to be liberal and Democratic, while rural and suburban areas are more often Republican. Thus the Republicans, who currently control Congress, are aiding those they consider their supporters and penalizing those they feel would most likely oppose them in any election.
The US is becoming proverbially polarized, into Red and Blue states. Now one more divisive and polarizing issue has been found.
Update, February 9, 2012.
I have been corrected in a comment (which see): Transportation Secretary LaHood was in fact appointed by Obama.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
