April 9, 2004

Shampoo and Panties

POST #    927

Do any products we use really differ? Sure, you can taste the difference between diet and regular, but can you really tell the difference between normal and full body shampoo? (Assuming the same packaging, of course.) Of course, this reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons, but what doesn't. In the episode, Homer visits the Duff Brewery and tries Duff, Duff Light, Duff Dry, but they all come from the same vat.

This came to mind because I was out of shampoo and had to get some more.* The two types of Pantene (more on that in a second) were different, but did I notice any difference at all? Nope. Just the color on the bottle changed. My hair was no more full than normal.

And Pantene, is it me, or is Pantene the 90's/00's version of Pert Plus, but without the "plus". It's like the generic shampoo that everyone can afford, yet is pseudo rich class at the same time. I'm not sure why, Pantene is so popular though. At least Pert Plus had the plus conditioner thing working for it. The only thing that Pantene has working for it, besides that pseudo fancy thing, is that the name closely resembles "panty". Panty. What a word. It's a word that every american guy likes because of Victoria's Secret plugging their various "panty" lines, yet seldom do you hear wmen calling them panties. To them, it's just underwear. But to guys, we think, "I wear underwear, women wear panties." So...Pantene ~ panties → Pantene sells well.

*By get, I mean, go downstairs to get some from my parents.

Posted by tien mao in Random at 7:33 AM

 

 

you're crazy. i can tell the diff btw shampoos. maybe not two different kinds of pantene but if you gave me suave vs pantene vs aveda vs biolage i could def tell the diff. also, you should stop leaching off your parents. or you should use the money you save on shampoo and food to buy me beer!

Posted by: rachelleb at April 9, 2004 8:07 AM

you mean to say that you don't wear panties?

Posted by: corie at April 9, 2004 8:12 AM

well, i mean between the same brands. and you can't tell me that if you lived in the same building as your parents, you wouldn't occasionally leach off your parents.

and corie, i just find panties too restricting for me.

Posted by: tien at April 9, 2004 8:55 AM

While washing my hair the differences between any of the mid-priced shampoos are pretty small as far as I can tell. Some of the really cheap shampoos don't give a good "I've got a hair full of shampoo" feeling. Once dry I can't detect a difference in cleanliness, body, or manageability. Then again, it's been many years since I've combed my hair, and I don't exactly belong to the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists.

Posted by: joe s at April 9, 2004 9:10 AM

isn't pert plus still around?

and pantene does make a shampoo and conditioner in one, if i'm not mistaken.

Posted by: el at April 9, 2004 10:15 AM

joe, maybe because i have too much hair, i can't tell the difference between full and not.

el, yes, pert still exists, and pantene does make shampoo and conditioner in one. but pert isn't as "in" now and i don't have shampoo and conditioner in one.

Posted by: tien at April 9, 2004 10:24 AM

Oh, wait, um...does this mean I shouldn't be wearing panties?

/cough

Posted by: Jon at April 9, 2004 10:27 AM

be careful. if you use pantene for too many days in a row it starts to create a strange film on your hair, not unlike ectoplasm. try suave. it's only 99cents and according to their advertising it is equally splenderific.

Posted by: dana at April 9, 2004 1:27 PM

and suave would never lie in their advertising to try to make you buy their 99 cent shampoo. Never. I would use craptacular to describe suave shampoo, not splenderific.

Posted by: rachelle at April 9, 2004 2:16 PM

dana? you have a blog now? when did this start? and if that coating thing is true, i'm in trouble...

it seems like rachelle has no fondness for suave.

Posted by: tien at April 9, 2004 4:31 PM

I'd go one step further and guess that rachelle once had a traumatic experience with suave.

Posted by: joe s at April 9, 2004 4:39 PM

Not to change the subject so abruptly, but if anyone has listened to the special commentary on the Futurama DVDs, they'll remember a recurring discussion about the comedic value of the words "underwear," "panties," and "underpants." The last one, according to focus groups, is the funniest of all of them in the same vein as how the duck is the funniest animal.

Posted by: adam at April 9, 2004 5:02 PM

Post a comment

 




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Previous : Apartment Update   |  Main   |   Next :  Times Like These
 
Powered by Movable Type