Gillette’s wonderfully woke new commercial

[realibrad]

Or maybe it's just Gillette's version of a public service announcement & ad campaign rolled into one. They could have created a non-profit to do much the same thing but it wouldn't get nearly the air time.

How anybody not a devotee of toxic masculinity could take offense at it is baffling. Which is what our apparently insecure OP did right from the start.

If Gillette does the right thing for all the wrong reasons, it's still the right thing.

So, what do you think I have done in this thread? Obviously not the thinks you just referenced.

 

[cytg111]

So, because I have not brought up other examples in this thread, it makes what I said nonsensical and invalid?

What does capitalism and democracy have to do with believing a company is profit driven and not noble?

Noble = feels.
Feels never entered the equation.
Thats all you.
I dont know any other way to explain this, to me all the facts is right there still you come to this other conclusion... shrugs..

 

[1prophet]

Condescending Virtue signaling at its finest that costs corporate America very little ,

ask them for living wages, close up their tax loopholes, stop waving the American flag while using foreign countries cheap labor and absence of the rules and regulations (that made America the country that was looked up to) because profits only matter, stop buying off politicians that write the laws for them and then let's see how NICE they really are.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Or maybe it's just Gillette's version of a public service announcement & ad campaign rolled into one. They could have created a non-profit to do much the same thing but it wouldn't get nearly the air time.

How anybody not a devotee of toxic masculinity could take offense at it is baffling. Which is what our apparently insecure OP did right from the start.

If Gillette does the right thing for all the wrong reasons, it's still the right thing.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is disingenuous. The ad is a poorly constructed daisy chain of gender stereotypes and cliches. The statement in the ad that “some” men are “good” is by default asserting that “most” men exhibit toxic masculinity.

Gillette is losing market share to companies with business models more in line with how millenials shop, and rather than take the harder step of evolving, they instead went for virtue signaling.

#sobrave

 

[realibrad]

Noble = feels.
Feels never entered the equation.
Thats all you.
I dont know any other way to explain this, to me all the facts is right there still you come to this other conclusion... shrugs..

My my, do you not realize I am the one saying it was not for the feels. Amused is the one saying the company did it for the greater good. I am the one saying they did it for profit. Did you mix that up somehow?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Real men don't shave with a fuckin' Gillette anyways Either way the whole Ad campaign was stupid. Seeing feminists giving this a round of applause is laughably stupid. The concept of finding a fucking moral high ground with someone that is trying to SELL YOU SOMETHING just tells me how pathetic people's brains are.

Really I don't care for the commercial - it doesn't make me butt-hurt, but just the general concept of advertisers telling us how we should be is just stupid in of itself. You are a product. I do not care what your company perceives as manly - or even your own company moralities.

Now with that said - Ricky Gervais definetly had the best reply

Also shouldn't feminists be butt-hurt? they are acting on gender stereotypes! Women should be taking the role of the man in the house!

 

[mikeymikec]

If the company pushed a message that is shown to be hypocritical (by say a multitude of recent ex-employees), then I'd criticise the company for that.

Judging by the reactions on YouTube, I think this advert's potential to increase sales is pretty limited, because there are three basic audience reactions:

1 - Positive/agree with the basic message - To these people I think this advert comes across as "water is wet" and would only increase sales with this audience if there was a competing company that had already come out with an opposite message (one that endorses toxic masculinity).
2 - Neutral reaction to the basic message - This crowd probably has the biggest potential to be swayed by the advert purely because it is an advert for Gillette. I also think it's the smallest audience because - judging by the reactions on YouTube - the message is pretty damn divisive (twice as many dislikes as likes, and some commenters are asserting that their dislikes have been taken off).
3 - Negative reaction to the message - These people are highly unlikely to buy Gillette products now.

Therefore I very much doubt that the marketing department of Gillette is stupid enough to think that broadcasting a controversial* message is going to result in a net increase in sales. Furthermore if Gillette has a dodgy recent history with regard to toxic masculinity, this advert will only encourage ex-employees to come out of the woodwork to denounce them.

* - controversial in the sense that there are enough snowflakes out there getting butthurt by it.

I used to get mildly irritated when seeing advertising material that attempted to show as diverse groups as people as possible, but the last decade or so of experience has taught me that there are still plenty of people out there who ride on the assumption that foreigners are bad and need to be convinced otherwise, and so I file experiences like that kind of advertising to be similar to the "paradox of tolerance" because it isn't a paradox at all but basic common fucking sense, so the only thing to get irritated about is that many people still need to learn to live and let live.

 

[Paratus]

That is not what is happening. That is what you are trying to make it into, because, you have no defense for what we are actually saying. We have clearly said that promoting anit-sexism is good. Thinking the company is Noble for doing this is stupid. The company is trying to make money. The company is not trying to help.

The bolded is your opinion and lacks nuance. There’s nothing presented nor inherent in the functioning of a corporation that it could not hold two positions at the same time. To make money and help.

While in an effort to make a profit they may change to supporting toxic masculinity later or have in the past that would not prevent them from holding those two positions now.

So what evidence do you have that Gillette’s management is holding this new position solely for profit and not also to “help”?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The bolded is your opinion and lacks nuance. There’s nothing presented nor inherent in the functioning of a corporation that it could not hold two positions at the same time. To make money and help.

While in an effort to make a profit they may change to supporting toxic masculinity later or have in the past that would not prevent them from holding those two positions now.

So what evidence do you have that Gillette’s management is holding this new position solely for profit and not also to “help”?

...Because that is the ENTIRE point of marketing and advertisement IS that purpose lol.

You know, you can help out and donate money without making it public - right? Shocking, I know.

 

[realibrad]

The bolded is your opinion and lacks nuance. There’s nothing presented nor inherent in the functioning of a corporation that it could not hold two positions at the same time. To make money and help.

While in an effort to make a profit they may change to supporting toxic masculinity later or have in the past that would not prevent them from holding those two positions now.

So what evidence do you have that Gillette’s management is holding this new position solely for profit and not also to “help”?

P&G is not in the business of helping the world. Do I have definitive proof that a large corporation was trying to be noble and help the world at the cost of its profits, no.

P&G probably reached out to an agency for a way to solve a problem they have been working on for a while now. Razors are widely seen by consumers as a simple tool for hair removal. P&G is very much into branding, and, you can't command high margins for a simple tool. They have been trying to figure out a way to position their razors to not only stay the dominant product, but, increase sales further while also creating more premium products with higher margins.

So, given that is their history, we see this campaign and my conclusion is that this is a continuation of what they have been trying to do. Because I know that they have been trying to increase sales and position their brand in a way that allows for higher margins, I do not think this campaign was antithetical to that.

So not proof, but, knowledge of the situation and a reasonable extrapolation.

 

[Atreus21]

haha. Man, imagine a Tampax ad lecturing women against false rape accusations.

The earth would literally fly off its axis.

 

[Vic]

Reading this thread makes you wonder how triggered the righties would have been by the I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke commercial.

 

[Jhhnn]

haha. Man, imagine a Tampax ad lecturing women against false rape accusations.

The earth would literally fly off its axis.

Heh, Imagine conservatives forgetting that women use razors, too, then taking whatever convenient sidetrack they can find.

 

[Jhhnn]

Reading this thread makes you wonder how triggered the righties would have been by the I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke commercial.

They love that luscious rush of self righteous indignation. It's a Church Lady thing.

 

[realibrad]

Heh, Imagine conservatives forgetting that women use razors, too, then taking whatever convenient sidetrack they can find.

Jhhnn, this commercial was for men. Did you watch it? It opens with their slogan "the best a man can get" and goes from there. Jhhnn, did you get lost again?

 

[Jhhnn]

P&G is not in the business of helping the world. Do I have definitive proof that a large corporation was trying to be noble and help the world at the cost of its profits, no.

That's because it's just what you want to believe. Contrary evidence abounds-

https://www.gcfdn.org/Giving/Funds-...ing/Procter-Gamble-Charitable-Giving-Overview

They're not alone, either.

If it's all just PR, fine. If it works, and if idiots don't denounce them for doing so, it would obviously encourage more of the same. Hell- consumers should demand more of the same.

 

[Vic]

Jhhnn, this commercial was for men. Did you watch it? It opens with their slogan "the best a man can get" and goes from there. Jhhnn, did you get lost again?

That's been Gillette's slogan for decades.

Look, if Gillette's advertising bothers you, then stop buying their products. It's that simple, and honestly I don't give a crap either way.

 

[realibrad]

That's because it's just what you want to believe. Contrary evidence abounds-

https://www.gcfdn.org/Giving/Funds-...ing/Procter-Gamble-Charitable-Giving-Overview

They're not alone, either.

If it's all just PR, fine. If it works, and if idiots don't denounce them for doing so, it would obviously encourage more of the same. Hell- consumers should demand more of the same.

Jhhnn, did you know that companies have charities for both PR and tax reasons? For example, it was brought up that Coke and its drinks are a major factor for US obesity. Did you know that Coke does tons of charity?

Did you miss the part that P&G, before this ad ran, were trying to figure out how to rebrand razors as something other than a tool for hair removal to increase market share and or sales? Jhhnn, you are doing it again.

 

[Jaskalas]

And if Gillette has come to the conclusion that toxic masculinity doesn't sell the way it once did,

A lot of people are going to see the term masculinity and perceive this as a general / stereotyped attack without clause. Nuance is lost in translation for many people. Hell, I struggle with absorbing its meaning as its an entirely new concept never before discussed in earnest and only previously attributed to male hating extremists.

Sort of like telling people the Confederate flag stands for State's rights, for freedom, not slavery. Those of a different perception are (almost) never going to accept the view of another person as valid, due to preexisting bias. If a shift in perception does happen, it won't be easy.

 

[realibrad]

That's been Gillette's slogan for decades.

Look, if Gillette's advertising bothers you, then stop buying their products. It's that simple, and honestly I don't give a crap either way.

Yes, and Jhhnn's point was that the people that disliked this ad because those people thought it was targeting men and not realizing it was also targeting women because women also use razors. That is silly as the target was clearly men.

 

[Jhhnn]

Jhhnn, this commercial was for men. Did you watch it? It opens with their slogan "the best a man can get" and goes from there. Jhhnn, did you get lost again?

Do you somehow imagine that it doesn't register with women?

 

[realibrad]

Do you somehow imagine that it doesn't register with women?

Jhhnn, the target was men. Just as a bomb may target an individual, and also kill others.

 

[Vic]

Yes, and Jhhnn's point was that the people that disliked this ad because those people thought it was targeting men and not realizing it was also targeting women because women also use razors. That is silly as the target was clearly men.

I don't see anything wrong with marketing targetted towards any specific demographic.

 

[realibrad]

I don't see anything wrong with marketing targetted towards any specific demographic.

Neither do I. Why would you think that I would?

Jhhnn's point was that it was not targeted at men, which is silly. It was telling men to be better, not people.

 

[Vic]

Neither do I. Why would you think that I would?

Jhhnn's point was that it was not targeted at men, which is silly. It was telling men to be better, not people.

You're free to create advertising telling women to be better, if you think that's necessary. With all the anti-feminists up in arms over this Gillette ad, I'm sure you should be able to crowdsource the funding.