Off the Mark by Mark Parisi for January 04, 2021

Nice one

Look sharp, it’s a jungle out there.

Neither is company’s like Americas best advertising 2 pairs of glasses for $69.99 once you add all of what your prescription calls for your closer to $260.

No.

Not only is it unethical, it’s downright short-sighted.

Shhh! Don’t let Facebook or Youtube learn this.

No. No it’s not.

dictionary definition – NO – but the way that ethical is defined in today’s technical/MSM world – who knows?

no its not but that’s what all advertising, not just medical, is all about. Remember you are nothing if you don’t buy it

…I’m a little fuzzy on the concept…

That’s almost how I see normally, but I still think it is funny. Misery loves company?

Well, maybe not, but it brings them in…

Better than the cocaine and heroin that restaurants put in the food so you keep coming back for more.

In Consumer Ed, I was taught that advertisers create a need, then fill that need. Mission accomplished.

Contact the Eyevengers.

No.

Nah, not likely. Still Caveat Emptor should be used here. If they look at anything else, it’ll be fine. They’ll know it’s the sign, not the eyes. It’s really funny, though. Thanks for the laugh. Good way to start the day.

It’s pretty easy to see the sign lies.

Should have seen that coming

Speakin’ of ethical: How could a presidential pardon for his indicted/convicted cronies NOT work against Trump once h’s out of office? I. e. "Mr./Ms. X, you are pardoned for anything UP UNTIL NOW. Lie to us from here on & your F_______ ‘in (Fox News-in’) ass is grass!

Also: I asked my bank to find 1500 (missing) $ ’ s in my accounts. They were less than receptive.

Maybe offer more “eye candy”……

The ethical lines are blurred here.

Eye Labs Also