Gillette’s wonderfully woke new commercial

[Amused]

No, it's not enough said. I am not outraged by his audacity to question the value of such an obvious moral good. I have a brain for a reason, I think, and that is to use it. Is there a down side to moral signaling, and in particular by commercial interests that want to cuddle up to the prevaliling moral winds to make a buck. Is there absolutely no room in the universe to suspect their motives or question their moral sincerity?

Are you so so morally blind that you have become a chump. You remind me of a Republican. I am sorry that if I share your values, I do not share your moral certainty or your willingness to assume reluctance on the part of others is because they are morally contemptable. I find it a moral imperative that I don't become so sure of my own moral virtue that I become the same fanatic I resent when I see it in others. I have enough contempt for bullies and assholes that I don't want to become even more of one myself.

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.

No problem at all. I am not so cynical and inflexible in my thinking that just because I do not give complete trust to corporations, I do not believe they can ever do the right thing.

And in this and Nike's case, they have done the right thing at what will probably be great cost to their bottom lines.

The opposite of blind faith is blind cynicism.

In the middle is reality.

 

[realibrad]

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.

No problem at all. I am not so cynical and inflexible in my thinking that just because I do not give complete trust to corporations, I do not believe they can ever do the right thing.

And in this and Nike's case, they have done the right thing at what will probably be great cost to their bottom lines.

The opposite of blind faith is blind cynicism.

In the middle is reality.

So, you believe they did this knowing it would hurt sales, but, better society? You don't think its possible that they thought this would help sales?

 

[Vic]

"Virtue signaling." He used that about a commercial that asks people to stop being bullies and assholes.

Enough said.

As for you, who the fuck cares where the right message comes from when it's right? Who is the one moralizing now? A company can't promote kindness and humanity? Fuck that.

That's just how the alt-right views the world. That being a good person and setting a moral example is a bad thing.

 

[Amused]

So, you believe they did this knowing it would hurt sales, but, better society? You don't think its possible that they thought this would help sales?

At best, a gamble. 35% of this country is solidly stuck in the past and hyper vigilant against anything seen as threatening the status quo.

I have no idea as to Gillette's demographics. Do you?

Not that I care much anyhow. The message is spot on and needs to be promoted about as fucking heavily as it can. I will never see harm in an advert telling people to stop being bullies and assholes and to stop tolerating them as well and frankly, I'm shocked anyone does.

 

[Jaskalas]

Gillette’s wonderfully woke new commercial

I thought commercials sold products. This one was just a bold political statement.

So the premise is something I think I understand, and agree with. (#metoo) But they burdened it with some extra layers that seem to target men in general. Not quite the focus needed to deliver a strong punch. It may still be effective nonetheless. Hard to tell how it impact's the identity of men or triggers the Ego into action.

 

[brycejones]

"Virtue signaling." He used that about a commercial that asks people to stop being bullies and assholes.

Enough said.

As for you, who the fuck cares where the right message comes from when it's right? Who is the one moralizing now? A company can't promote kindness and humanity? Fuck that.

Virtue Signaling is code for how dare you tell me I'm being an asshole. I don't want my nose rubbed in it.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

No problem at all. I am not so cynical and inflexible in my thinking that just because I do not give complete trust to corporations, I do not believe they can ever do the right thing.

And in this and Nike's case, they have done the right thing at what will probably be great cost to their bottom lines.

The opposite of blind faith is blind cynicism.

In the middle is reality.

How did we get from Gillette to Nike? And there you go again, structuring the argument so that you can only have one opinion. I am not making the case that corporations can never do anything right. My first post was grudging acceptance of what Gillette did with their ad. I only question certain implications where I could see a down side. The same reason you can say that corporations aren't always evil tells me that sometimes they may be, that the application of judgment, analysis, and discriminate thinking is always requited rather than blind assumptions based on past experiences that may be anecdotal. The cure for blind faith is skepticism.

 

[Vic]

Virtue Signaling is code for how dare you tell me I'm being an asshole. I don't want my nose rubbed in it.

How dare you infringe on their free speech by exercising your own?!?

 

[Amused]

Virtue Signaling is code for how dare you tell me I'm being an asshole. I don't want my nose rubbed in it.

This, and it's something Moonie is being intentionally obtuse about. I'm really not interested in playing contrarian games today.

 

[Amused]

How did we get from Gillette to Nike? And there you go again, structuring the argument so that you can only have one opinion. I am not making the case that corporations can never do anything right. My first post was grudging acceptance of what Gillette did with their ad. I only question certain implications where I could see a down side. The same reason you can say that corporations aren't always evil tells me that sometimes they may be, that the application of judgment, analysis, and discriminate thinking is always requited rather than blind assumptions based on past experiences that may be anecdotal. The cure for blind faith is skepticism.

Nike took a similar societal issue stance on a subject. In fact, both are getting the exact same response from the exact same right-wingers.

And the cure for healthy skepticism is thinking it's the same as blind cynicism.

Stop being obtuse about "virtue signalling" being used whenever someone being an asshole is called out on it. That one phrase exposed everything about the OP's intentions. Your being obtuse to it just plays into his game.

 

[realibrad]

At best, a gamble. 35% of this country is solidly stuck in the past and hyper vigilant against anything seen as threatening the status quo.

I have no idea as to Gillette's demographics. Do you?

Not that I care much anyhow. The message is spot on and needs to be promoted about as fucking heavily as it can. I will never see harm in an advert telling people to stop being bullies and assholes and to stop tolerating them as well and frankly, I'm shocked anyone does.

A pretty good idea yes. I work in marketing and know someone that worked for P&G for about 15 years. My GF has many ties to the company through this person, and often gets insights for marketing.

I can tell you that the goal was to position the brand ahead of the competition to increase sales. P&G is not trying to better society while losing market share.

Currently Gillette is trying to position its razors as something more than just a tool for removing hair. They are trying to position their brand with associations beyond the mundane to be able to have high margins which is ahead of most of the industry.

But hey, you asked a question that apparently you did not care about. That seems more like a hedge. You likely wanted to make it seems like I did not know what I was talking about, but, if I did, it would not matter.

As for your summary of the message, you too got that wrong and are missing why it would bother people.

 

[Amused]

A pretty good idea yes. I work in marketing and know someone that worked for P&G for about 15 years. My GF has many ties to the company through this person, and often gets insights for marketing.

I can tell you that the goal was to position the brand ahead of the competition to increase sales. P&G is not trying to better society while losing market share.

Currently Gillette is trying to position its razors as something more than just a tool for removing hair. They are trying to position their brand with associations beyond the mundane to be able to have high margins which is ahead of most of the industry.

But hey, you asked a question that apparently you did not care about. That seems more like a hedge. You likely wanted to make it seems like I did not know what I was talking about, but, if I did, it would not matter.

As for your summary of the message, you too got that wrong and are missing why it would bother people.

Is it bad to make money from doing the right thing and promoting the right message? Suddenly the message is wrong because they could make money? Is that the claim here?

 

[Moonbeam]

This, and it's something Moonie is being intentionally obtuse about. I'm really not interested in playing contrarian games today.

Of course I must be playing a game. There could be no doubt about your own correctness in all of this or that it's you who may be obtuse. Sorry you got triggered.

 

[MavericK96]

If anyone is easily offended by this ad then you are part of the problem.

Or, at least if you see this ad and your take-away is that Gillette is saying ALL men are sexist...you might be part of that group in question.

 

[Amused]

Of course I must be playing a game. There could be no doubt about your own correctness in all of this or that it's you who may be obtuse. Sorry you got triggered.

Answer this: Is the message of the commercial wrong in any way?

 

[Moonbeam]

Is it bad to make money from doing the right thing and promoting the right message? Suddenly the message is wrong because they could make money? Is that the claim here?

I find your seemingly uncharitable re-characterization of what people are saying to indicate more a defensiveness than a genuine questioning.

 

[Amused]

I find your seemingly uncharitable re-characterization of what people are saying to indicate more a defensiveness than a genuine questioning.

No, Moonie. I don't play obtuse. I can see where the questions and implications are leading and head them off at the pass. The ONLY reason profit is being discussed is to undermine the message as profit motivated and therefore not correct.

My question is, regardless of motive, is there anything NOT correct or right about the message? If not, WTF does the motive have to do with it?

 

[Jaskalas]

Answer this: Is the message of the commercial wrong in any way?

For the underlying purpose? No.
For the delivery and targeting of men? To a degree, yes.
For the public chatter it generated? Possibly not.

 

[Moonbeam]

Answer this: Is the message of the commercial wrong in any way?

I already answered that in the first of my posts in this thread. I have no problem with the message. I think that there are real and serious longer term questions that are raised when attempting to equate brand names with morality. Even if the morality is real, the associations may not be valid and once made become part of conditioning that is hard to break.

 

[realibrad]

Is it bad to make money from doing the right thing and promoting the right message? Suddenly the message is wrong because they could make money? Is that the claim here?

No, the claim is that a massive company is doing a campaign that has a singular goal of increasing revenue is latching onto what it think is popular. What people like @Moonbeam are doing, is pushing back against the vapid empty stance that a company is taking. Its fake concern as the only goal is to increase sales. I know that to be his position, because he said this.

"Is there a down side to moral signaling, and in particular by commercial interests that want to cuddle up to the prevailing moral winds to make a buck."

You are under the assumption that the campaign was to try and do good, when the reality is that it was a pay to play on emotions to make more money. The company does not care about you, or society at large.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, Moonie. I don't play obtuse. I can see where the questions and implications are leading and head them off at the pass. The ONLY reason profit is being discussed is to undermine the message as profit motivated and therefore not correct.

My question is, regardless of motive, is there anything NOT correct or right about the message? If not, WTF does the motive have to do with it?

I believe you see where they are heading incorrectly, owning to ideological bias. You sought to head them off at the pass way to early and for self invented reasons based on those assumptions, in my opinion. The only reason I find them concerning is that they involve corporate indoctrination, what ads are intended to do, over matters of universal application for which no profit motive should ever be associated or can ever touch. Profit motive does not make something incorrect, but it can taint the argument with suspicion and should cause some skepticism as to real motive.

Have you ever argued what a joke churches are for passing the basket after offering eternal life? Get the fuck real and drop this phony black and white act. Please, of course!

 

[Moonbeam]

No, the claim is that a massive company is doing a campaign that has a singular goal of increasing revenue is latching onto what it think is popular. What people like @Moonbeam are doing, is pushing back against the vapid empty stance that a company is taking. Its fake concern as the only goal is to increase sales. I know that to be his position, because he said this.

"Is there a down side to moral signaling, and in particular by commercial interests that want to cuddle up to the prevailing moral winds to make a buck."

You are under the assumption that the campaign was to try and do good, when the reality is that it was a pay to play on emotions to make more money. The company does not care about you, or society at large.

I am not actually saying that the profit motive is what drives the moral stand. I am saying that we are at some risk if we derive our moral stand from corporations who are also driven by a need to cozy up to which ever way the moral wind is blowing. I don't want advertising telling me the best swastikas to wear are those made of genuine German linen because they virtuously include real Jewish blood in the dye and wearing those will make you look really cool among your Nazi friends.

The issue is that while ads follow the public like vampire bats follow cattle, they also influence what cattle believe. Cause and effect become intertwined in unpredictable ways.

 

[realibrad]

I am not actually saying that the profit motive is what drives the moral stand. I am saying that we are at some risk if we derive our moral stand from corporations who are also driven by a need to cozy up to which ever way the moral wind is blowing. I don't want advertising telling me the best swastikas to wear are those made of genuine German linen because they virtuously include real Jewish blood in the dye and wearing those will make you look really cool among your Nazi friends.

The issue is that while ads follow the public like vampire bats follow cattle, they also influence what cattle believe. Cause and effect become intertwined in unpredictable ways.

Agreed. There is a feedback loop where people are creating a moral framework that is not grounded in morality. People are prone to agreeing with authority and these companies will fill that role. When Apple removed the headphone jack in its phones, many defended it as a good thing. The reality was that Apple wanted to save money while creating an incentive to sell wireless headphones. Fans of Apple loved apple for what they thought was progress, when in reality it was giving up a benefit and thanking the company that took it away.

 

[Vic]

I can appreciate concerns about corporate cynicism, but at the same time, corporations are going to try to market their products however they can. So I would prefer they did so with a positive moral message rather than not.

 

[Vic]

Agreed. There is a feedback loop where people are creating a moral framework that is not grounded in morality. People are prone to agreeing with authority and these companies will fill that role. When Apple removed the headphone jack in its phones, many defended it as a good thing. The reality was that Apple wanted to save money while creating an incentive to sell wireless headphones. Fans of Apple loved apple for what they thought was progress, when in reality it was giving up a benefit and thanking the company that took it away.

Well, you're talking about Apple users, so there's not much that can be done to help. Apple fans just love giving Apple their money.