Gillette’s wonderfully woke new commercial

[VRAMdemon]

Who gives a shit if this ad is "signaling" something..jesus christ..It's amazing that a TV commercial would get somebody sooo worked up. If you don't like the ad, don't but the product they are selling.

 

[realibrad]

Did you ever consider that women may see this Ad and consider buying a Gillette Venus razor, some other Proctor & Gamble products, perhaps along with a few shares of P&G stock?

I guess you got lost thinking about those smooth balls you read about.

First of all, don't judge my fantasies.

2nd, that was not lost on me. In term of CPG, women are the main driving force. Ultimately, this was likely a way to drive women to buy more razors for their men. The message was 100% directed at men though. We are starting to get too deep into marketing though for these terms to make sense to most people.

The ad said men should try to be better than what they generally are now. Not people, men.

 

[Moonbeam]

But Corporations are people too, my friend.

Not sure what you intend with this but I like it. On the one hand it strengthens my notion that a positive moral message can arise in a corporation because it is a consensus opinion of people, and a risky proposition because, well, as you and I know full well, corporations are not people and do not deserve the rights owed real people or be authentically moral in the same way a person can.

 

[mikeymikec]

You do not know what you are talking about.

Ah yes, the all-too-familiar cry of those overburdened with knowledge.

 

[realibrad]

Who gives a shit if this ad is "signaling" something..jesus christ..It's amazing that a TV commercial would get somebody sooo worked up. If you don't like the ad, don't but the product they are selling.

This is what I worried about. Signaling is a marketing term. You assume you know what it means, but, in marketing its a valid term for describing how a marketing message will be formed.

Give this a quick read.

https://simplicable.com/new/marketing-messages

"Signaling
Demonstrations of social status such as a brand that shows a celebrity wearing their products. "

 

[realibrad]

Ah yes, the all-too-familiar cry of those overburdened with knowledge.

As explained a few posts before, no. CPG is not a long term product. Razors are a market where there is competition. The reason people buy the P&G brand is because of the brand association. If you taint your brand, you have no advantage and you lose market share amazingly fast.

This is why in the world of CPG, you do not take big risks on market leaders with well established brands.

So, again, you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Vic]

You are telling your customers they should become better people. That runs the risk of making those people feel something negative. If you think that group is small, then its worth that risk. P&G thought, and possibly still do think that the opposition group is small enough that the positive will not be smaller than the negative. P&G also likely did not think it was even close, as again, they do not want to risk well established brands with this type of thing unless you are very sure its safe.

Didn't seem to hurt Nike much.

 

[VRAMdemon]

This is what I worried about. Signaling is a marketing term. You assume you know what it means, but, in marketing its a valid term for describing how a marketing message will be formed.

Give this a quick read.

https://simplicable.com/new/marketing-messages

"Signaling
Demonstrations of social status such as a brand that shows a celebrity wearing their products. "

Lol."this is what Iworried about" lol..wtf...Again, Who gives a shit if this ad is "signaling" something. They own the company, they can put out whatever ads they want. Don't like the ad, don't buy the product

 

[realibrad]

Didn't seem to hurt Nike much.

As I said, its a risk and not an absolute. Further, Nike did it as a way to benefit themselves.

That is the subject I have been talking about. Amused wanted to say it was a noble act, and not one that was meant to increase sales.

 

[realibrad]

Lol."this is what Iworried about" lol..wtf...Again, Who gives a shit if this ad is "signaling" something. They own the company, they can put out whatever ads they want. Don't like the ad, don't buy the product

I did not say signaling was a problem. I said it was part of the marketing message. Are you day drinking?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Didn't seem to hurt Nike much.

No it did not. This ad is more Kendall Jenner Pepsi and Ram trucks MLK.

 

[Moonbeam]

Who gives a shit if this ad is "signaling" something..jesus christ..It's amazing that a TV commercial would get somebody sooo worked up. If you don't like the ad, don't but the product they are selling.

Hehe, aren't you making the assumption that the OP was worked up about a particular Gillette commercial when his expressed concern was about the notion of corporations advertizing morality and the social implications of that? So, in my opinion you see him as sooo worked up about an issue he wasn't worked up about at all, and by doing so you worked yourself up. So there is no solution to the problem, if there is one or more, with corporations becoming involved in virtue signaling, in not buying their product or turning off the ad. Talking about the ad is a jumping off point to a broader and more complex issue.

It seems to me then, that this recent, 2014 notion of internet public shaming that is becoming rooted in the radical left, is causing the radical left to become triggered whenever their shaming or virtue signaling is even held up to tentative questioning. Who here is really being triggered? I am perfectly comfortable to enter this fray as a person who is triggered by authoritariansm of the left or the right. Either form, in my opinion, is monsterous and dangerous insanity.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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

The earth would literally fly off its axis.

Oh c'mon. You telling us that you're really that stupid? Lordy.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Huh. Guess the OP was only concerned by this matter for about 30 seconds.

 

[realibrad]

Huh. Guess the OP was only concerned by this matter for about 30 seconds.

Tell us more about your concern about his concern.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Oh c'mon. You telling us that you're really that stupid? Lordy.

Oh they definitely are that stupid. Because saying "hey guys, don't be shitty" is the same as saying "women, you aren't actually raped" (which is what that person absoulutely is inferring, as people like that believe most rape allegations are false) because their brains are that fucked.

I'm surprised we haven't had the onslaught of whinging about this:
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ng-masculinity-to-violence-sexism-homophobia/

 

[Victorian Gray]

Tell us more about your concern about his concern.

No

 

[realibrad]

No

Well, your concern seems to have an even shorter life than his did. Go figure.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Oh they definitely are that stupid. Because saying "hey guys, don't be shitty" is the same as saying "women, you aren't actually raped" (which is what that person absoulutely is inferring, as people like that believe most rape allegations are false) because their brains are that fucked.

I'm surprised we haven't had the onslaught of whinging about this:
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ng-masculinity-to-violence-sexism-homophobia/

That's what all the moaning about this commercial is in essence. Seems I read that the study (along with others) was part of what inspired this particular commercial.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well, your concern seems to have an even shorter life than his did. Go figure.

Yeah. Not interested in this dance.

 

[cytg111]

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?

Oh boy. I refer you to post #86 then. And after your unavoidable course correct, I assume we are done here.

Those of you butthurt over this ad, I invite you to take your concern back to the inception of Barbie and Ken .. and then work your way up to this one. I know this will take about a decade, if AT PN is still around by then, then lets pick this up again shall we?
JFC.

 

[cytg111]

Hehe, aren't you making the assumption that the OP was worked up about a particular Gillette commercial when his expressed concern was about the notion of corporations advertizing morality and the social implications of that? ..

I think its an inherent logical conclusion reviewing advertising history as well as UCs posting history. Morality in advertising has been a thing well before Barbie and Ken yet, for UC to get concerned it had to have a grain of #metoo in it.
I think you are the one triggered ... for some god forsaken reason.

 

[realibrad]

Oh boy. I refer you to post #86 then. And after your unavoidable course correct, I assume we are done here.

Those of you butthurt over this ad, I invite you to take your concern back to the inception of Barbie and Ken .. and then work your way up to this one. I know this will take about a decade, if AT PN is still around by then, then lets pick this up again shall we?
JFC.

Did you see post 88 where I established that he did indeed do what I claimed?

Let me quote it for you again.

"Its implied by what you have said.

If the company is trying to, in your words "end toxic masculinity" at the cost of their profits, then that would be the company putting morals ahead of their self interest. That is by definition noble.

That is, however, not what the company was doing. The company did not run this campaign thinking it would hurt them. They did it thinking it would help them.

I'm not defending anything other than my position, which is that what the company did was not to help society at their expense. What the company did was to try and align themselves and their brand with an idea they thought would help sell more of their product."

What I took issue with this the idea that the company was knowingly giving up money for the benefit of society. If he believes that is what P&G was doing, that would be by definition of a noble act. That is not what I believe their motivations were.

"I have absolutely no problem with a company that has made billions promoting a cartoonish brand of masculinity standing up and promoting an end to toxic masculinity at the cost of millions of customers being offended by it."

You, much as you were before, are still wrong.

 

[realibrad]

I think its an inherent logical conclusion reviewing advertising history as well as UCs posting history. Morality in advertising has been a thing well before Barbie and Ken yet, for UC to get concerned it had to have a grain of #metoo in it.
I think you are the one triggered ... for some god forsaken reason.

Careful where you are pointing your projections.

 

[cytg111]

Did you see post 88 where I established that he did indeed do what I claimed?

Let me quote it for you again.

"Its implied by what you have said...

Implied? Im out.