1. Wear exclusive clothing brand
2. Act like a douche on TV
3. ????
4. Profit!!1!
1. Wear exclusive clothing brand
2. Act like a douche on TV
3. ????
4. Profit!!1!
| izaaz101 said: 1. Wear exclusive clothing brand 2. Act like a douche on TV 3. ???? 4. Profit!!1! |
And you don't even need to steal underpants, or wear them, for what matters, this plan must have been devised by Paris Hilton!
| Omac said: Have you looked at the stock market? Everything is down. |
S.N.A.F.U
(The) Situation Normal, All Fouled Up
Replaced Fouled with an F-Bomb for full effect. Wow, The Situation has caused the entire market to drop. It is interesting, in the realm of market psychology, if this paying someone on TV to not wear a brand, can cause increased uncertainty in the market, as this is not normal.
Alby_da_Wolf said:
And you don't even need to steal underpants, or wear them, for what matters, this plan must have been devised by Paris Hilton! |

Will the cast of Jersey Shore be releasing their own music album soon?
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)
sapphi_snake said:
Will the cast of Jersey Shore be releasing their own music album soon? |
ZOMFG! This is beyond evil! =8-O
richardhutnik said:
S.N.A.F.U (The) Situation Normal, All Fouled Up Replaced Fouled with an F-Bomb for full effect. Wow, The Situation has caused the entire market to drop. It is interesting, in the realm of market psychology, if this paying someone on TV to not wear a brand, can cause increased uncertainty in the market, as this is not normal. |
The article never implied it ihas caused a drop in the entire market. If you actually read it is talking about a ten percent drop by the company on topic. It only links a possiple correlation and never considers causation.

chocoloco said:
The article never implied it ihas caused a drop in the entire market. If you actually read it is talking about a ten percent drop by the company on topic. It only links a possiple correlation and never considers causation. |
Don't mind me. I first decide to not be serious about things and connect The Situation to Wall Street stocks dropping (another 500 points looks like today), and then begin to think that a reversal of a trend where companies end up doing the opposite of sponsorship (paying to NOT have someone wear something) would end up causing things to get unstable.
It's not like Abercrombie is not already associated to douchebags
If they decided not to offer them money not to wear their products they will still be down 10% because the market is in the shit hole.