Why bother.... ?

[krw]

5% is pretty lame but there really isn't much margin in this stuff. The whole point is to get you in the store; bait and switch works. Sears has been famous for this crap for years.

[Leon]

They could shorten the exception exclusion by simply stating 20% off except anything you would now want to buy... Or 20% of everything except anything you would want to buy.

[Han]

Steve Turner wrote in news:j157lt$u7k$ [e-mail]:

Yes consumer-directed advertisements used to be banned. But then the sheeple were considered educated enough to decide for themselves what medications to ask for (and doctors too uneducated to keep up with current best treatments). Combine that with the enormous crop of socalled me-too drugs (minute changes of and many copies of drugs that were about to lose patent protection) and you have an avalanche of competing ads. And now we're turned off because pharma is forced to mention the side effects. Remember, aspirin would have a VERY, VERY hard time getting approved if it were a new drug.

What's Bud Light?

[Swingman]

Being the cynic that I am I wouldn't bet that this litany of side effects was solely out of the concern for the consumer ... that's a lot of advertising revenue.

[Steve Turner]

I don't know, but they have funny commercials.

[Han]

Swingman wrote in news:ueSdndme- oqMNKvTnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

Not out of concern for the consumer, Karl. Fear of lawyers!!

For instance, it still isn't totally clear what the cause is/was of the bad experiences with Vioxx (and almost all other NSAIDs). The statistics were very clear, it is/was bad. There was an approximate 50% increase of death from 1.6% in placebo to 2.4% in Vioxx-treated people who already were at bad risk. So it was deemed that the benefits of Vioxx didn't outweigh the risks. If you died while taking Vioxx, or even after having stopped taking Vioxx, consult your lawyer!! Just see how many lawyers pop up when you google "vioxx excess deaths" ...

Also it was way too expensive ...

[DGDevin]

Rocker's coupons are semi-useless, although a couple of times I've been able to find enough stuff I wanted to make it worthwhile. Woodcraft's aren't quite so bad, their coupons can usually get me down to the local store (which is what they are designed to do)--like I need an excuse.

[Robert Bonomi]

One has to try _really_ hard to come close to the old Hamm's 'bear' commercials. They were often more entertaining than the programming they interrupted.

[Swingman]

I don't think that is it totally, Han. Although it may play a small part.

Effectively, you can neither advertise, nor contract away, liability.

If someone is harmed because of your product, despite warnings to the contrary, you're still on the hook if proved liable.

Signs in the car parks: "Owner Not Responsible for ...".

Like hell, they're not.

[Han]

Swingman wrote in news:N7ydnZ7_Kfn8e6vTnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

Maybe the regulation is that all side effects need to be declared. IANAL, in other words I don't know the regulations ... But I seem to remember that at first the side effects weren't mentioned as much as they are now. Someone must have told the drug companies to wise up ...

[Steve]

Swingman wrote in news:vtCdnd21d7-Y96jTnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

Swingman,

I could not agree more. My wife and I have a joke that anytime a next to worthless coupon shows up in the mail I refer to it as a "Rockler Coupon".

I almost never buy anything there.

Steve

[Bill]

Don't laugh, they've got two of my email addresses, so everytime they send you a coupon they send me two! I emailed them to take one of the addresses off of their list, but apparently it didn't take.. With luck, I'll train myself to ignore both of them, but I always seem to be curious as to what's on sale...

Bill