Amazon has Revlon's 'miracle worker' blow-dryer brush for $36 — almost 50% off
There's just something about leaving the salon with a fresh new blowout that can turn your entire week around, right? Unfortunately, constantly getting blowouts can take a big chunk out of your wallet. Good news: You can get a salon-worthy blowout at home for way less. Amazon has slashed the price on the No. 1 bestselling Revlon One-Step Volumizer Plus blow-dryer brush by nearly 50%, bringing it down to just $36. In the words of one five-star reviewer (out of over 400,000), "Bruh...get it."
An at-home blowout is always cheaper than consistently going to a salon, but some top-rated blowout brushes and styling tools can set you back $500 (lookin' at you, lovely but pricey Dyson Airwrap). So, yeah, a one-time purchase of $36 is more than ideal. Plus, scoring 50% off anything is always thrilling.
Here's what makes this quick-drying Revlon brush stand above the rest: The clever gadget uses ionic technology to help tame frizz for smooth, shiny locks. Meanwhile, the rounded shape and tufted bristles add body, volume and overall life to your hair, making it look fuller than normal. No more putting blood, sweat and tears into using a round brush and blow dryer at the same time.
Even though it seems like some magical, mystical tool that's too good to be true, the Revlon One Step Volumizer has plenty of reviews to back it up. Over 400,000 shoppers(!!!) have given it a five-star rating.
"I've only had this hairdryer/styler for a short time, but it is a game-changer," shared this frizzy-haired fan who dubbed the Revlon a "miracle worker." They continued by writing: "I am a senior citizen with arthritic hands and could never deal with a hairbrush and a blow dryer at the same time ... Hello! Professional results! Fast drying, easy to use, smooth, styled, shiny hair. I kept waiting for it to frizz. I could not believe how simple using the brush was."
A second shopper wrote: "Works great! Cut drying time in half. I have very curly, long hair and this dries [it] quick and straight. I've bought them for every friend I have!"
"This is la crème de la crème," raved another content customer. "Get it and you won't be disappointed. I have frizzy, curly, thick and unmanageable hair like you can't believe. Nothing ever worked: products, blowout or even the salon hair care. This brush works like magic and every time I use it people think I went to the salon to have my hair done. And it lasts till the next shampoo. Fifteen minutes max and you are good to go."
One five-star reviewer flagged the noise. "I wish I had bought this sooner," they wrote. "It is easy to use and my hair has more body. The only downside is it is loud on the cool setting, but so worth it."
"The only downside [is] it does get quite warm, so a heat protectant spray should be used," cautioned this savvy shopper. "I wish it had a cool button you could hit for just a shot of coolness vs. a cool setting where it just runs on cool continuously until you change it. I found the medium setting to be a little less hot than the high. Overall I would recommend."
And as for that heat protectant, why not amp up the shine and frizz control with this popular hair helper?
If you have Amazon Prime, you'll get free shipping, of course. Not yet a member? No problem. You can sign up for your free 30-day trial here. (And by the way, those without Prime still get free shipping on orders of $35 or more.)
The reviews quoted above reflect the most recent versions at the time of publication.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA - Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be "equitable." It said the contribution requirement is "inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues." Apple also said the regulator "acted prematurely" and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was "equitable." It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers "has any connection to news production" and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. "What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money," it said. "That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production." In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. "While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services," the broadcasters said. "For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade." A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. "The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants," the office of the attorney general said. "Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters." The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve "an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden." "This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament" and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Video shows crane delivers Jeff Bezos' furniture to penthouse after billionaire closes down 5th Ave
Must be a perk of Prime. A stretch of Fifth Avenue was closed for a massive delivery to Jeff Bezos' sprawling NoMad penthouse, according to a mind-blowing video shared on TikTok. A huge piece of wrapped furniture dangled from a rope as a crane last week slowly hoisted it above the intersection of Fifth Avenue and 26th Street, which was lined with caution tape, barricades, machinery and moving company trucks. 4 Dozens of workers milled about, directing traffic and joining passersby in watching as the item neared the top of 24-story 212 Fifth Ave., where Bezos reportedly owns five apartments spanning the top four floors worth $119 million. Raffi Arslanian, the owner of luxury candle company Thompson Ferrier, caught the commotion on camera Saturday. 'You want to see how Jeff Bezos delivers his furniture? Let me show you,' said Arslanian, whose office is a block away. 'I think we all can relate to this,' he joked. 'Now back to reality, where, when we move, we get a U-Haul and we do it ourselves, or at best, we get a company to do it — but we don't close the street,' Arslanian quipped. His video has garnered more than 970,000 views and thousands of comments, some speculating about what giant object the crane was transporting. 4 4 'It's a hot tub,' said one commenter. A grand piano, suggested another. Others were more interested in how much the operation cost. 4 Large-scale moves using cranes can cost upwards of $20,000 a day, according to reports, and require permits to shut down the streets. 'Amazon prime delivery, billionaire subscription,' one TikToker joked. 'We would all do the same if we had 100 billion dollars,' another remarked. Bezos, worth an estimated $223 billion, according to Forbes, between 2019 and 2021 plucked up one unit after another in the former office tower overlooking Madison Square Park.
