Otherwise, it only goes to add to the stereotype, I guess
And yes, it absolutely does make a difference.
No, it absolutely doesn't, if you still wash your hair.
Not to mention you can use ordinary soap or shower gel and it will do just fine.
The proliferation of such BS (non existent back in the day -- the first synthetic shampoos were introduced in the 1930s, with daily shampooing becoming the norm in the US by the 1970s and 1980s) is mostly due to marketing and cargo cult.
Oh of course. Because all shampoos have the same alkalinity and same composition, right? If we're talking about supermarket brands I agree they all do have similar compositions.
Sounds like a lot of people here have never washed their hair with something besides common brands.
> Not to mention you can use ordinary soap or shower gel and it will do just fine.
Yes, some shower gels are made as shampoo (some even says in the bottle, but I agree most of them do work fine as shampoo... for a day or two)
> The proliferation of such BS
Do you know what's even better to clean yourself? Diluted caustic soda. It's an excellent grease remover.
Few of us have experienced the magnificent sound of $1000 Monster hi-fi cables either...
In contrast, people don't replace $1000 hi-fi cables for decades.
Though of course the point of the metaphor was the pointlessness and "unscientific" cult nature of both purchases, not that the total amount spend is the same.
You're overestimating the cost and purchase frequency of it. Cost per year is at least 5x less than your numbers.
Unless you get the dilution wrong, in which case it's an excellent skin remover.