|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 12:17:49 GMT -5
You first. The second part of my post (the part that begins "Notwithstanding the fashion expertise of a certain poster") is a reply to the "cheap" comment made by a different poster. That's the point - your entire response to me never addressed anything I wrote. You used veiled references to Beachguy's putdown of Maddie (which I never endorsed) followed by questioning why I thought Tiffany's would hire someone who didn't help them when I never said anything about whether signing Maddie was a good or bad move. You then posted a few videos that also had nothing to do with what I had written. If I said something erroneous in my post, I would be more than happy to retract it, but I have not seen the evidence of that yet and none seems forthcoming. And you're accusing me of needing a reading comprehension course?? Try reading again my initial response to you, especially the first part, the part with the first video link and your incorrect statement about the timing of Tiffany's advertising with Maddie. Clue: look at the date of the first video, then read your incorrect statement again from your initial reply to Richard. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 12:37:21 GMT -5
In your earlier post, you stated, "That would have been the sales for first quarter 2018 which occurred prior to any advertisement using Maddie Ziegler had even appeared." Contrary to what you wrote in your post above, that statement does not come (directly nor indirectly) from the article that Richard linked in his post. You wrote that statement yourself, and it is incorrect. As I showed, the first ad video with Maddie Ziegler was posted by Tiffany in March 2018 (first quarter). A person with integrity would have admitted his error and moved on. Instead, you chose to accuse me of a temper tantrum. What in my post gave you the false impression that I was having a temper tantrum? I simply (and calmly) provided facts and the videos links to support them.You also said that I need a course in reading comprehension. Yet you were unable to recognize that the second part of my post was in response to the person who said Tiffany's hiring decision was based on a "cheap" rate. That was clear from the context of other recent posts in this thread, made by multiple people. BTW, it's "Elle" Fanning - not "Ellie". . The article clearly states: The "Believe in Dreams" campaign launched last month features celebrities with whom Millennials identify, like actress and model Elle Fanning, dancer, actress and model Maddie Ziegler, and rapper A$AP Ferg.The article was dated June 20, 2018. Since it stated the campaign began the previous month, that would have been May 2018. Since there could be a few weeks between writing and posting, I pushed that back to April 2018 to give as generous a cushion as could be warranted by the article. The article is all I was given in Richard's post and that is the info I used. If in fact the article is wrong on the starting date of the campaign, I do stand corrected on that point but again the turnaround had begun in 2017 and the first quarter represented the high point (at that date) of the turnaround. None of this, again, is meant to slight Maddie. It is simply a fact that the turnaround started in 2017 and continued. I also stand corrected on the spelling of Elle Fanning's name. As for the second part of your post, you missed the point entirely. What I was pointing out is that addressing what someone else wrote does not address what I wrote. Whether Maddie was a good move or a bad move for Tiffany's was irrelevant to anything I wrote since I was not addressing that point. My entire post was on the sequence of events leading to the turnaround in Tiffany's fortunes and anything not related to my response or not addressing that sequence of events was in fact irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Aug 27, 2019 12:43:12 GMT -5
I expect the remainder of Jackie's career will be focused on establishing herself in some form of popular music and the older CC material will be dropped over that time as those who want to hear it drop into their graves. I agree that Jackie wants a career in popular music. Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want. I predict that she will not find success in popular music and will continue to rely heavily on CC (and its very close relative: showtunes). I should note that Jackie has been singing showtunes all her career. She got her start with Phantom of the Opera, she has released 2 albums exclusively filled with showtunes, and she sings showtunes in all her concerts. I predict that her career will be similar to Michael Feinstein's: CC, showtunes, cabaret. |
|
|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 12:49:40 GMT -5
The article clearly states: The "Believe in Dreams" campaign launched last month features celebrities with whom Millennials identify, like actress and model Elle Fanning, dancer, actress and model Maddie Ziegler, and rapper A$AP Ferg.This repetitious exchange with you is getting tiresome. Again, let's go back to reading comprehension (sorry, but you're the one who raised that issue). Look at what you quoted from the article (which I have quoted above). It very clearly refers to the "Believe in Dreams" campaign. Yes, the "Believe in Dreams" campaign was launched at the beginning of May, as the article stated. However, Maddie Ziegler began advertising for Tiffany in March 2018, not May 2018, which I demonstrated earlier by posting the link to the video below. Tiffany posted the video in March 2018. This was prior to the launch of the "Believe in Dreams" campaign, in which Maddie was also a major part, as evidenced by multiple videos posted by Tiffany, as well as a "pop-up" event in Manhattan which included a photoshoot with her. |
|
|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 13:00:39 GMT -5
That would have been the sales for first quarter 2018 which occurred prior to any advertisement using Maddie Ziegler had even appeared. In case it still isn't clear to you, March 2018 comes before May 2018. Tiffany's first video with Maddie came in March 2018, which contradicts your statement above. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 13:09:42 GMT -5
The article clearly states: The "Believe in Dreams" campaign launched last month features celebrities with whom Millennials identify, like actress and model Elle Fanning, dancer, actress and model Maddie Ziegler, and rapper A$AP Ferg.This repetitious exchange with you is getting tiresome. Again, let's go back to reading comprehension (sorry, but you're the one who raised that issue). Look at what you quoted from the article (which I have quoted above). It very clearly refers to the "Believe in Dreams" campaign. Yes, the "Believe in Dreams" campaign was launched at the beginning of May, as the article stated. However, Maddie Ziegler began advertising for Tiffany in March 2018, not May 2018, which I demonstrated earlier by posting the link to the video below. Tiffany posted the video in March 2018. This was prior to the launch of the "Believe in Dreams" campaign, in which Maddie was also a major part, as evidenced by multiple videos posted by Tiffany, as well as a "pop-up" event in Manhattan which included a photoshoot with her. And again, when I posted, i was going by the information given which was this article. The post was responding to made claims about Maddie's signing turning things around for Tiffany's. This article was cited. The only thing in the article mentioned about Maddie was her being part of the "Believe in Dreams" campaign. Obviously, if what Richard claimed is true, it is not contained in the evidence he gave - this article. The article states the turnaround had already begun and reached a high point in Q1 2018. That means the turnaound began in 2017. Frankly, I don't care at what month in 2018 Maddie's work with Tiffany's started as it does not affect the main points. Namely, the article does not state what was claimed (and even you would have to agree with that) and that the turnaround began prior to her signing. As I said in the last post, I happily stand corrected on the date when Maddie began work with Tiffany's but I was using information someone else provided and I responded that the article did not support what he claimed. In fact, it does not. Now if additional information changes things, that's fine but my point stands. You have noted that the video was dated prior to 4/2018, so obviously her work began soon before that point (presuming that was the earliest work with Tiffany's). So now I have to ask you again where in the article did it state that Maddie's work turned around Tiffany's? That was, after all, the whole point of my post. |
|
|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 13:25:12 GMT -5
The article states the stock reached an all time high in May 2018 based on record sales. That would have been the sales for first quarter 2018 which occurred prior to any advertisement using Maddie Ziegler had even appeared. And my initial point to you was very simple. In your reply to Richard, you wrote "first quarter 2018 which occurred prior to any advertisement using Maddie Ziegler had even appeared". This statement did not come (directly or indirectly) from the article, which is what you later tried to claim. You wrote the statement about advertising using Maddie, did you not? Yes you did. Is it correct? No it is not - as I showed in my first reply to you, it very clearly is not. I pointed out a simple fact - that your statement about Tiffany's advertising with Maddie was incorrect. Instead of reading my post, looking at the date of the first video, and admitting that your statement was incorrect, you accused me of having a temper tantrum and needing a reading comprehension course. You "played yourself", and that's not very bright. I suggest that in the future, before you post a reply to what someone else has written, read their post at least twice, or more, and also reread your reply to see if it actually address what they're written. Maybe if you do this in the future, you can avoid continuing to embarrass yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by PST on Aug 27, 2019 13:36:44 GMT -5
Six and a quarter inches versus six and a three-eights... Yes, it's the fight of the decade!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pin the Tail on Aug 27, 2019 13:40:46 GMT -5
As I said in the last post, I happily stand corrected on the date when Maddie began work with Tiffany's It's not the fight of the century, but it's a matter of whether someone has the integrity to honestly admit a mistake. This statement is a "misrepresentation" by you. You did not state in your previous post that you "happily stand corrected on the date when Maddie began work with Tiffany's". What you wrote in your previous post was this: "If in fact the article is wrong on the starting date of the campaign, I do stand corrected on that point". Why do you want to try to twist things? It's dishonest. The article wasn't wrong about the starting date of the "Believe in Dreams" campaign. You took it upon yourself to state that Maddie hadn't done any advertising with Tiffany before that campaign, and as I showed, you were wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Aug 27, 2019 13:44:13 GMT -5
I expect the remainder of Jackie's career will be focused on establishing herself in some form of popular music and the older CC material will be dropped over that time as those who want to hear it drop into their graves. I agree that Jackie wants a career in popular music. Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want. I predict that she will not find success in popular music and will continue to rely heavily on CC (and its very close relative: showtunes). I should note that Jackie has been singing showtunes all her career. She got her start with Phantom of the Opera, she has released 2 albums exclusively filled with showtunes, and she sings showtunes in all her concerts. I predict that her career will be similar to Michael Feinstein's: CC, showtunes, cabaret. I say you have 70 % chance of being correct , it is not her on stage events but her off stage events have killed her career , mom & sister/bro sank it . |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Aug 27, 2019 13:50:23 GMT -5
I agree that Jackie wants a career in popular music. Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want. I predict that she will not find success in popular music and will continue to rely heavily on CC (and its very close relative: showtunes).n I should note that Jackie has been singing showtunes all her career. She got her start with Phantom of the Opera, she has released 2 albums exclusively filled with showtunes, and she sings showtunes in all her concerts. I predict that her career will be similar to Michael Feinstein's: CC, showtunes, cabaret. I say you have 70 % chance of being correct , it is not her on stage events but her off stage events have killed her career , mom & sister/bro sank it . Her mother and bro were a big part of it but Jackie's laziness and doing the same o same o routine for years was more of a contributing factor in her declining career. |
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Aug 27, 2019 13:51:47 GMT -5
Why are people still talking about the young artists and $$$$$$$ , who gives a scrap about it , be concerned about your bank account , money can hurt & harm in lots of ways as who is really a friend , etc , etc , etc . i hope they all have a career they love . Most all i know seems to be good people .
|
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 27, 2019 13:57:37 GMT -5
The article states the stock reached an all time high in May 2018 based on record sales. That would have been the sales for first quarter 2018 which occurred prior to any advertisement using Maddie Ziegler had even appeared. And my initial point to you was very simple. In your reply to Richard, you wrote "first quarter 2018 which occurred prior to any advertisement using Maddie Ziegler had even appeared". This statement did not come (directly or indirectly) from the article, which is what you later tried to claim. You wrote the statement about advertising using Maddie, did you not? Yes you did. Is it correct? No it is not - as I showed in my first reply to you, it very clearly is not. I pointed out a simple fact - that your statement about Tiffany's advertising with Maddie was incorrect. Instead of reading my post, looking at the date of the first video, and admitting that your statement was incorrect, you accused me of having a temper tantrum and needing a reading comprehension course. You "played yourself", and that's not very bright. I suggest that in the future, before you post a reply to what someone else has written, read their post at least twice, or more, and also reread your reply to see if it actually address what they're written. Maybe if you do this in the future, you can avoid continuing to embarrass yourself. Let's try this again. I was not responding nor caring to specific claims about when Maddie signed with Tiffany's. I was responding to what was claimed as evidence for the statement that Maddie's signing began the turnaround in fortunes for Tiffany's. I claimed the article was misrepresented. it was. This would be true even if Maddie's signing DID turn around Tiffany's fortunes. As I have tried to point out numerous times, I was not addressing what Maddie did or did not do for Tiffany's or when she began working with them but whether or not the article stated the turnaround began with her signing.
Richard had claimed the article as evidence for Maddie's signing beginning the turnaround. The only mention of Maddie in the article is the "Believe in Dreams" campaign. If the article supports his claim, then the "Believe in Dreams" campaign must be the turnaround point since that is the only time she is mentioned. Well, he also states the turnaround point is when she was signed. Therefore he must be claiming the two go hand-in-hand. But, again, even if they don't, then the article still does not support her as the focal point of the turnaround.
Now, once more I will ask you which of the main points I made were incorrect. Namely:
1. The article does not state that Tiffany's was losing money.
2. The article does not credit signing Maddie Ziegler with the turnaround.
3. The article then states they have started a new round of ads using Maddie, actress Ellie Fanning, and some rapper named A$AP Ferg to further their appeal to millennials and thus not centered entirely on Maddie
4. Equally important to the marketing issues was the buyback of stock by Tiffany's.
While i will concede #4 is more subjective and requires some knowledge of stock buybacks, the other three are prety cut and dry. The main point of my post was that Richard's characterization of the article was inaccurate and it did not support his claims. It didn't and I don't see how anyone can disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Aug 27, 2019 13:59:33 GMT -5
Why are people still talking about the young artists and $$$$$$$ , who gives a scrap about it , be concerned about your bank account , money can hurt & harm in lots of ways as who is really a friend , etc , etc , etc . i hope they all have a career they love . Most all i know seems to be good people . Beachy, your only friend is a buck, and the more bucks you got the more friends you'll have. Take it to the bank. Book it. 🤑 |
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Aug 27, 2019 14:00:18 GMT -5
I say you have 70 % chance of being correct , it is not her on stage events but her off stage events have killed her career , mom & sister/bro sank it . Her mother and bro were a big part of it but Jackie's laziness and doing the same o same o routine for years was more of a contributing factor in her declining career. You talk as if she had a say but imo she was a total puppet all these years , i have no information of laziness except opinions of people and i put very little stock in people of the human race , in other words brainwashing was at hand in her routine , Book it . |
|
