| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Scotts v Pennington https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=69266 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | bigfan [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Scotts v Pennington |
The grass seed wars!!! Never heard two companies go at it this much...not even coke and pepsi! Pennington using Scotts name in the commercial and Scotts calls them 'the other guys" even spent the money have someone create the red headed irish guy to win the war! 10 pounds of seed+ 10 pounds of filler v 20 pounds of seed! Who knew. My lawn is about 4x6, and the condo assoc takes care of it, so not a caring party |
|
| Author: | Chus [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Scott's has always worked for me. |
|
| Author: | Chris_in_joliet [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
If there's grass on the field... |
|
| Author: | WhiteAndProud [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
How long until the Scotts Scottish guy pops up on the Home Run Inn Grill your pizza hotline? |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
bigfan wrote: Pennington using Scotts name in the commercial and Scotts calls them 'the other guys" even spent the money have someone create the red headed irish guy to win the war! Whenever an advertiser uses "the other guys" it means that they are the dominant market name. Whenever an advertiser uses the actual name of the competition it means they aren't the dominant name and therefore they are using that name to subliminally put the two on the same level.McDonalds won't acknowledge Burger King or Wendys. Coke rarely references Pepsi. Boilermaker Rick doesn't acknowledge Phil McCracken. |
|
| Author: | Chus [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: bigfan wrote: Pennington using Scotts name in the commercial and Scotts calls them 'the other guys" even spent the money have someone create the red headed irish guy to win the war! Whenever an advertiser uses "the other guys" it means that they are the dominant market name. Whenever an advertiser uses the actual name of the competition it means they aren't the dominant name and therefore they are using that name to subliminally put the two on the same level.McDonalds won't acknowledge Burger King or Wendys. Coke rarely references Pepsi. Boilermaker Rick doesn't acknowledge Phil McCracken. You do reference IMU. |
|
| Author: | JORR [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
The Scottish guy refers to a man named Pennington who says Scott's is loaded with filler in the latest one. Personally, I find the "Scott" character so fucking annoying, I'd probably use Pennington's even if it were going to kill my lawn. FEED IT! |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: The Scottish guy refers to a man named Pennington who says Scott's is loaded with filler in the latest one. Personally, I find the "Scott" character so fucking annoying, I'd probably use Pennington's even if it were going to kill my lawn. FEED IT! 
|
|
| Author: | Darkside [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
If you seed right and you're not a choad you have no need for water absorbing coatings at all. Just the damn seed. Pennington should advertize with "we know you're not stupid. We know you will water your seed. You won't need something to hold in water.". |
|
| Author: | JORR [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Darkside wrote: If you seed right and you're not a choad you have no need for water absorbing coatings at all. Just the damn seed. Pennington should advertize with "we know you're not stupid. We know you will water your seed. You won't need something to hold in water.". I think they had one almost exactly like that last year. |
|
| Author: | Bucky Chris [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Chris_in_joliet wrote: If there's grass on the field... Well even if there isn't, you can still flip 'em over and play in the mud. |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Bucky Chris wrote: Chris_in_joliet wrote: If there's grass on the field... Well even if there isn't, you can still flip 'em over and play in the mud. 
|
|
| Author: | WhiteAndProud [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
So when you buy a bag of grass what percent of that is just paying to subsidize nonstop advertisement? |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Chus wrote: You do reference IMU. That's because he isn't competition. That would be like McDonald's worrying about a hot dog vendor.
|
|
| Author: | Ed_from_Lisle [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Chus wrote: You do reference IMU. That's because he isn't competition. That would be like McDonald's worrying about a hot dog vendor.
|
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Chris_in_joliet wrote: If there's grass on the field... Jimmy Reardon and Jerry Sandusky wrote: Then they are too old for us!
|
|
| Author: | Killer V [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
I have a couple of bare patches in my lawn and used Pennington's on one and Scott's on the other. After two weeks, the Scott's is coming up nicely and no sign of growth from the Pennington's yet... |
|
| Author: | Hank Scorpio [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
I actually purchased Pennington 2 weeks ago just because their ads are so calm and soothing vs the angry Scot. So far so good, I would give it the Hank Scorpio Seal of Approval. |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Bucky Chris wrote: Chris_in_joliet wrote: If there's grass on the field... Well even if there isn't, you can still flip 'em over and play in the mud.
|
|
| Author: | Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
It's expensive and best used for limited areas & bare patches but Scott's EZ Seed if pretty much fool-proof. Very minimal prep and after-care, yet it still grows perfectly. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Bucky Chris wrote: Chris_in_joliet wrote: If there's grass on the field... Well even if there isn't, you can still flip 'em over and play in the mud. Worst one I ever heard... Old enough to be seven, old enough to be ate... |
|
| Author: | City of Fools [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
scott's is better because it's pretty much idiot-proof. Pennington is not. |
|
| Author: | Hank Scorpio [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
What is with the idiot proof comments? You clean the area, break up the soil a bit and put the seed down. Water frequently. Grass grows. |
|
| Author: | City of Fools [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
water frequently. That one usually gets me. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Put down astroturf. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Frank Coztansa wrote: Put down astroturf. FIELD TURF wrote:  |
|
| Author: | Hank Scorpio [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
City of Fools wrote: water frequently. That one usually gets me. So you dont have to water the grass seed from Scotts? No wonder they can hire the angry man to pitch their product. They've invented a seed that requires no water!!!! |
|
| Author: | City of Fools [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Frank Coztansa wrote: Put down astroturf. by cracky. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Bucky Chris wrote: Chris_in_joliet wrote: If there's grass on the field... Well even if there isn't, you can still flip 'em over and play in the mud. 
|
|
| Author: | Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Scotts v Pennington |
Hank Scorpio wrote: What is with the idiot proof comments? Actually, all of that. Would you accept lazy? It requires little more than opening the bag and spreading it. Decent trade-off for the money.
You clean the area, break up the soil a bit and put the seed down. Water frequently. Grass grows. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|