2 ms·
> If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks The difference is t he product is 'blessed' by the official seller: Would
by overfeed 7mo ago
> If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks
The difference is t he product is 'blessed' by the official seller:
Would you feel defrauded if Gucci sends you the Gucci-branded socks you ordered, but you discover later they were made by the HZBZZYXY factory in Guangdong rather than by an Italian master sock-craftsman?
- BoingBoomTschak 7mo agoThat question falls entirely under the legal concept of false advertising. Depends on what Gucci proclaimed.
- overfeed 7mo agoWhat do you think of fast-food chains using of idealized-product-shots for ads and menu pictures that look nothing like their actual product? The.markerting uses pictures of products that take hours to prepare by 'food stylists' in a specialist kitchen/studio[1], and are often not even edible, but look great on camera. Apocryphally, motor oil is sometimes used as a maple-syrup stunt-double. Is that false advertising to you? If so, why would an OnlyFans model be more culpable than McDonalds or Wendy's? 1. https://youtu.be/FBP-DxfZCgo https://youtu.be/FBP-DxfZCgo
- DANmode 7mo agoGood framing.