Category: Investing

Third quarter earnings are being release. Procter and Gamble reported Tuesday that it wrote down the value of its Gillette brand by $8 billion dollars. Before showing the ad that played a part in this write down, I want to define the word advertising (via Wikipedia):

Advertising is a marketing communication that employs an openly sponsored, non-personal message to promote or sell a product, service or idea. Sponsors of advertising are typically businesses wishing to promote their products or services.

The point of advertising is to sell more products. It is not to virtue signal to people who do not use your products. It is not to alienate your customers with ideological driven dribble. With this background you are ready to see ‘what not to do’ when advertising.

First, children do not shave. Why the ad talks about children bullying is beyond me.
Second, young teens that begin to shave have only one thing on their mind. This was true from the beginning of mankind. It will be true when the sun burns out. With small exceptions, men are biologicly hard wired to desire beautiful women.  This reality transcends race, ideology, culture, geography, economic class, etc.
The video has 31 million views. It has twice as many dislikes than likes. The comments section is about 90% negative. It is being called the “8 billion dollar write down”. Gillette posted this advertisement at a time when it is facing new and fierce competition from startup subscription clubs like Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s.
I do not own shares of Procter and Gamble. If I did, I would sell immediately. Management cares more about virtue signaling than the share holders. As far as I know, not a signal person has been fired over this blunder.
As a side note, the ad implies wolf whistling is bad behavior. Wolf whistling is a lighthearted way for a man to get a women’s attention. It almost never works. Men who do it are out of ideas.

Charles Hugh Smith latest article is entitled, “Alexa, How Do We Subvert Big Tech’s Orwellian Internet-of-Things Surveillance?“. He believes the US is turning into George Orwell’s 1984 dystopia. He begins the article with the following:

Convenience is the sales pitch, but the real goal is control in service of maximizing profits and extending state power.

I am nervous already! He continues:

When every device in your life is connected to the Internet (the Internet of Things), your refrigerator will schedule an oil change for your car–or something like that–and it will be amazingly wunnerful. You’ll be able to lower the temperature of your home office while you’re stuck in a traffic jam, while your fridge orders another jar of pickles delivered to your door.
It’s all in service of convenience, the god all Americans are brainwashed to worship. Imagine the convenience of turning on the light while seated on your sofa! Mind-boggling convenience at your fingertips–and since you’re already clutching your smart phone 24/7, convenience is indeed at your fingertips.
It’s also about control, and as we lose control of everything that’s actually important in our lives, the illusion of agency/control is a compelling pitch…
The Internet of Things is indeed about control–not your control, but control over you— control of what’s marketed to you, and control of your behaviors via control of the incentives, distractions and micro-decisions that shape behavior.

This certainly sounds like I am in control. But no! It is all an illusion! You see marketing is a form of control! You didn’t know…
Reality Check: Marketing is all about satisfying the consumer. Getting information to the consumer to make better decisions and improve their lives. The algorithms “learn” what you like. This save you, the consumer, time. Time is valuable. I only want to see advertisements that might interest me. This might put me in contact with some device or piece of knowledge I never knew existed.
The internet has made the consumer more informed. The internet has made the consumer more ‘powerful’. Goods and services are all subject to a bad Yelp or Amazon review. Forty years ago this was not possible.
He continues:

The control enabled by the Internet of Things starts with persuasion and quickly slides into coercion. Since corporations and government agencies will have a complete map of your movements, purchases, consumption, communications, etc., then behavior flagged as “non-beneficial” will be flagged for “nudging nags”, while “unsanctioned” behavior will be directed to the proper authorities.
Say you’re visiting a fast-food outlet for the fourth time in a week. Your health insurance corporation has set three visits a week as a maximum, lest your poor lifestyle choices start costing them money for treatments, so you get a friendly “reminder” to lay off the fast food or make “healthier” choices off the fast food menu.
Failure to heed the “nudges” will result in higher premiums or cancelled coverage. Sorry, pal, it’s just business. Your “freedom” doesn’t extend to costing us money.

The author does not understand the nature of government bureaucracies. The NSA wants to end the mass phone data collection program. I quote , “The agency is reportedly of the view that this program, which gathers metadata on domestic text messages and phone calls, has become too burdensome to continue operating.”
The NSA collects massive amounts of data. Even if they have a sophisticated AI to analyze all this data, bureaucrats still needs to go through each flagged event. I don’t care how sophisticated this AI program is, there will still be a lot of noise.  The Boston Marathon bombing caught US government officials off guard. After the bombing congressman Peter King had this to say, “I received two top secret briefings last week on the current threat levels in the United States, and there was no evidence of this at all.”
When you are watching everyone, you are watching no one.
The same issue exist for corporations on a much smaller scale. You go to Burger King and order a #5. Is a #5 healthy or unhealthy?  Is a #5 the same in all store locations in the country? But lets say a health insurance company could collect all this data: where you eat, what you ordered and analyze it. Who would most likely buy health insurance from a company like this? People who eat healthy of course. If health insurance companies tracked all of this information they would have more knowledge. This would reduce their risk since they know what everyone is eating. I doubt anyone who ate Burger King five days a week would buy health insurance from a company like this. Why would they? They are more likely to get cheaper insurance from a company that is in the dark about the type of lifestyle they are living. It is the same with car insurance. Looking at data, car insurance companies know that younger drivers get in more accidents on average than older drivers. This is one reason car insurance is more expensive for younger drivers. But imagine car insurance companies had more information. Imagine they tracked your speed, driving habits, how often you are on the road, etc.
A new driver that did not drive often might see his car insurance price drop significantly after a few months. Where as a new driver that was always on the road during rush hour, might see his car insurance get more expensive. There will still exist a segment of the population that does not like the idea of a company tracking them in this way. Companies would still exist for these people.
He than follows his logic to its conclusion, namely, off the deep end:

Understand you’re being played and gamed 24/7; ignore all the marketing, pitches and propaganda. Make it a habit to ignore all marketing pitches, discounts, coupons, etc. Become an anti-consumer…

I do not recommend you ignore discounts. I also think it is a bad idea to throw away coupons if they actually save you money.
I would not hire Charles Hugh Smith to be my financial planner. Would you?