omg omg omg 118
12-21-2011
, 11:15 AM
12-21-2011
, 11:16 AM
12-21-2011
, 11:17 AM
Quote:
Price of cigarettes really explains why so many ppl are smokers here (We are like #1 in Europe, true story) and I guess since we have Philip Morris, Japan Itenrational Tobacco and all other major cigarette manufactureres here they are preventing prices going up...
Extra profit is extra profit.
Smoking here is most affordable thing for everyone
Extra profit is extra profit.
Smoking here is most affordable thing for everyone
12-21-2011
, 11:19 AM
12-21-2011
, 11:20 AM
12-21-2011
, 11:22 AM
In bars beer goes from 0,9 Eur (dispensing beer) up to 3 Eur (also some imported, rare beers)
I know Lasko is cheaper here than it is in Slovenia.
12-21-2011
, 11:24 AM
12-21-2011
, 11:29 AM
LOL here's the thread where I go off on TT. I had forgotten all about those terrible terrible ads.
And what's great about my post is that I can read it two years later and realize that I was 100% right. I'm really awesome.
I also really like *TT* just closing the thread down without ever actually saying anything other than making fun of 4L. Vintage.
And what's great about my post is that I can read it two years later and realize that I was 100% right. I'm really awesome.
Quote:
The name of the forum is "BBV4Life." It can be shortened to "BBV4L", "4L", or (rarely) "B4L". It is the third most trafficked subforum on your site, accounting for 8% of 2+2's traffic in February of this year (last time stats were posted that I can tell).
You can put whatever ads you want up.* If you want to allow ads for BBW dating sites and super-sketchy-looking stock-picking sites and whatever the hell "imvu" is, I have absolutely no problem with that. I don't know much about advertising on the internet. I do know that the ads that have been served up in this experiment have been absolutely ridiculous, looked terrible, and advertised products and services which seem awfully unprofessional and shady if not downright dishonest and scammy. And I know that this makes 2+2 look bad for serving those ads up on their site.
At the risk of shooting my mouth off, I'm gonna say that I am reminded of that damn "page peel" ad where you kept insisting that it was completely fine and really wouldn't entertain arguments to the contrary. 2+2 looked like it cared more about ad revenue than its users there, and it looks like that again to me here. Note that I'm not saying that annoying dumb ads are as bad as an ad that hijacks a user's entire screen, I'm just saying that your motivations for it and reactions to complaints seem pretty similar to me.
Also, sick demographic targeting skills confirmed:
EDIT: To put it more explicitly: My complaint is that they're all seedy companies who I really doubt 2+2 would want to associate with. But I get the sense that TT doesn't really care about that so long as the checks don't bounce, even though I think it's clearly in 2+2's best interest to not be associated with sleazy cheap sites that offer GUARANTEED RETURNS OF 120% ON YOUR INVESTMENT USING FIVE SIMPLE RULES!! 2+2's brand will be tarnished, and 2+2's brand is the most important thing it has going forward as book sales are in free fall. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
* I don't distinguish between Google Ads that you don't directly choose and the other ads that you do choose because in either case, you are allowing the ads are served on your site.
Originally Posted by Mayo
Quote:
Originally Posted by *TT*
looks targeted perfectly to the BBVFL crowd IMO. Fat chicks and nerdy guys need lovin too!
You can put whatever ads you want up.* If you want to allow ads for BBW dating sites and super-sketchy-looking stock-picking sites and whatever the hell "imvu" is, I have absolutely no problem with that. I don't know much about advertising on the internet. I do know that the ads that have been served up in this experiment have been absolutely ridiculous, looked terrible, and advertised products and services which seem awfully unprofessional and shady if not downright dishonest and scammy. And I know that this makes 2+2 look bad for serving those ads up on their site.
At the risk of shooting my mouth off, I'm gonna say that I am reminded of that damn "page peel" ad where you kept insisting that it was completely fine and really wouldn't entertain arguments to the contrary. 2+2 looked like it cared more about ad revenue than its users there, and it looks like that again to me here. Note that I'm not saying that annoying dumb ads are as bad as an ad that hijacks a user's entire screen, I'm just saying that your motivations for it and reactions to complaints seem pretty similar to me.
Also, sick demographic targeting skills confirmed:
EDIT: To put it more explicitly: My complaint is that they're all seedy companies who I really doubt 2+2 would want to associate with. But I get the sense that TT doesn't really care about that so long as the checks don't bounce, even though I think it's clearly in 2+2's best interest to not be associated with sleazy cheap sites that offer GUARANTEED RETURNS OF 120% ON YOUR INVESTMENT USING FIVE SIMPLE RULES!! 2+2's brand will be tarnished, and 2+2's brand is the most important thing it has going forward as book sales are in free fall. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
* I don't distinguish between Google Ads that you don't directly choose and the other ads that you do choose because in either case, you are allowing the ads are served on your site.
12-21-2011
, 11:32 AM
12-21-2011
, 11:34 AM
Quote:
LOL here's the thread where I go off on TT. I had forgotten all about those terrible terrible ads.
And what's great about my post is that I can read it two years later and realize that I was 100% right. I'm really awesome.
I also really like *TT* just closing the thread down without ever actually saying anything other than making fun of 4L. Vintage.
And what's great about my post is that I can read it two years later and realize that I was 100% right. I'm really awesome.
I also really like *TT* just closing the thread down without ever actually saying anything other than making fun of 4L. Vintage.
12-21-2011
, 11:35 AM