|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
Your response is exactly why when I break the video down with my marketing hat on (I'm a marketer), |
That's stunning because you were so far off base in regards to the "boys will be boys" sequence it was laughable. |
For a rational person, you sure refer to “mockery” and “laughter” alot
I thought the aim of the message was to enlighten us “boys” to not engage in laughter and mockery of others?
Seems that message that you’re such a big proponent of fell on deaf ears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: |
But you never answered my other question though
Is what bothers you simply the explanation of why someone dislikes the video? |
I'm not bothered at all. I find the reaction to the video to be quite interesting and entertaining. The mental gymnastics people go through to rationalize their contempt for something so absolutely harmless is intriguing.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | The ad is in support of women. |
And some men reacted very angrily to that. Interesting.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: |
For a rational person, you sure refer to “mockery” and “laughter” alot |
In what world is laughter irrational?
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
For a rational person, you sure refer to “mockery” and “laughter” alot |
In what world is laughter irrational? |
You do that in meetings at work? Someone has an idea you disagree with so you resort to mockery and laughter?
This is what you got from the Gillette ad?
Men, we can be better - let’s mock and laugh at each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | The ad is in support of women. |
And some men reacted very angrily to that. Interesting. |
Funny how you characterize an opposing viewpoint as “angry”
Yet your viewpoints doesn’t mean that you’re “bothered” at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
For a rational person, you sure refer to “mockery” and “laughter” alot |
In what world is laughter irrational? |
You do that in meetings at work? Someone has an idea you disagree with so you resort to mockery and laughter?
This is what you got from the Gillette ad?
Men, we can be better - let’s mock and laugh at each other. |
Now your analogies, THEY are irrational.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
For a rational person, you sure refer to “mockery” and “laughter” alot |
In what world is laughter irrational? |
You do that in meetings at work? Someone has an idea you disagree with so you resort to mockery and laughter?
This is what you got from the Gillette ad?
Men, we can be better - let’s mock and laugh at each other. |
Now your analogies, THEY are irrational. |
So laughter and mockery is what you got from this Gillette ad?
This is how you strive to be better?
A fellow man voices a dissenting opinion - you respond w/ mockery and laughter?
That’s your solution? That’s what you got out of this ad?
Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25086
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is battle of the last word toxic masculinity? Jk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nickuku
Star Player
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 7844
Location: Orange County
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
For a rational person, you sure refer to “mockery” and “laughter” alot |
In what world is laughter irrational? |
You do that in meetings at work? Someone has an idea you disagree with so you resort to mockery and laughter?
This is what you got from the Gillette ad?
Men, we can be better - let’s mock and laugh at each other. |
Now your analogies, THEY are irrational. |
So laughter and mockery is what you got from this Gillette ad?
This is how you strive to be better?
A fellow man voices a dissenting opinion - you respond w/ mockery and laughter?
That’s your solution? That’s what you got out of this ad? |
I feel like you're just swinging wildly at this point.
_________________
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nickuku wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
For a rational person, you sure refer to “mockery” and “laughter” alot |
In what world is laughter irrational? |
You do that in meetings at work? Someone has an idea you disagree with so you resort to mockery and laughter?
This is what you got from the Gillette ad?
Men, we can be better - let’s mock and laugh at each other. |
Now your analogies, THEY are irrational. |
So laughter and mockery is what you got from this Gillette ad?
This is how you strive to be better?
A fellow man voices a dissenting opinion - you respond w/ mockery and laughter?
That’s your solution? That’s what you got out of this ad? |
I feel like you're just swinging wildly at this point. |
I don’t know.
If this is such a great message - shouldn’t it have some type of practical application?
If the message is about being a better man - by not being a bully, listening to others, helping out your fellow man, etc.
And you’re a proponent of this message, and you claim that it’s an enlightening message..
Then shouldn’t you show some of those traits? I mean - if your solution to a dissenting opinion is to support mockery and laughter - it just doesn’t jive with the message
And if your whole angle is - other men in America need to hear this message - then shouldn’t you be the first man to take that same message to heart?
Practice what you preach? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I feel like you're missing the point. And that seems to be the common denominator with the people who dislike this ad - they're focusing on the wrong thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loslakersss wrote: | | I feel like you're missing the point. And that seems to be the common denominator with the people who dislike this ad - they're focusing on the wrong thing. |
So if we all just focus on the right thing, we’ll accept the ad?
And you were fortunate enough to focus on the right thing?
Is there a right way and a wrong way to react to the ad?
Isn’t that why they have focus groups? To see how people will react to the ads?
You don’t go to a focus group and then they tell you how you should be reacting to the ad and what you should be focusing on....
The point of an ad is to get a reaction out of people. So it’s inconveivable to me that there’s a right and a wrong way to react to an ad.
That’s like 2 people watch the same movie - one loves it one hates it and the one that loves it is trying to convince the other that their reaction to the movie was a wrong one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I didn't say you're reacting the wrong way. I said that people who didn't like the ad (was not talking about you specifically) were focusing on the wrong thing. And that's a pretty simple concept. When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loslakersss wrote: | | When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things. |
Not a true statement. It doesn’t have to directly impact your life to bother you.
Things happening halfway around the world has no direct impact on my life. Doesn’t mean they don’t bother me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | I'm not going to engage in whataboutism and false equivalency. Women get more than their share of other kinds of cultural messages directed at them every single day about how to look, act, behave, think, feel, dress, walk, talk, etc. That's not the topic here. Duh. |
What does “fair share” have to do with anything?
Remember your position was that if it doesn’t apply to you - don’t worry about it.
So why not make the message to All people (regardless of gender) - and if it doesn’t apply to you (man or woman) - don’t worry about it.
Is your position that you like the ad the way it is - only targeting men?
You don’t believe the message would be an even more appropriate message by targeting everyone? |
Are you arguing that a men's facial shaving product should be marketing to non males? Their consumers are men. They market to men and traditionally that has revolved around a fit, shirtless man, shaving, while a hot woman comes up to him for a kiss. They specifically cited their past marketing slogans of "what makes a man". This new ad is meant to question their past marketing strategies and acknowledge that they perhaps helped to prop up stereotypical male roles.
I don't know who coined the term "male toxic masculinity" or whatever it is, but I think THAT'S what people are taking offense to. As if purely being a male is toxic. But that isn't coming from Gillette. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | loslakersss wrote: | | When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things. |
Not a true statement. It doesn’t have to directly impact your life to bother you.
Things happening halfway around the world has no direct impact on my life. Doesn’t mean they don’t bother me. |
Okay, you win. You cherry pick what you want to focus on from other posts and the commercial just to be a contrarian and/or argue in circles.
I will save you the trouble of disagreeing with the above statement and do it for you. Have a nice weekend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | Are you arguing that a men's facial shaving product should be marketing to non males? Their consumers are men. |
If your target and consumers are only men, and you want to send some kind of moral message - pick one that only applies to men.
Don’t take a universal message but only direct it towards men.
That’s like if Gillette only made hair products for black men - and they had the same ad but it was only geared towards black men
“Black men needs to be better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loslakersss wrote: | | I didn't say you're reacting the wrong way. I said that people who didn't like the ad (was not talking about you specifically) were focusing on the wrong thing. And that's a pretty simple concept. When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things. |
The question is are those people focusing on the wrong thing or was the message insufficiently conveyed? We can certainly go back and forth on what our personal feelings were about it but that's not all that interesting and usually devolves into snarky one-liners with little meat behind them.
The Kaepernick Nike ad was highly controversial, caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It has 27.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 0.07% meaning of all of the people who watched the video, 0.07% had such an issue with it they felt the need to express their displeasure.
In contrast, the Gillette Ad, also controversial, has also caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably also upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It currently has 20.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 4.9%
There are over 5 billion videos on YouTube. In 3 days, this video managed to crack the top 50 in terms of total negative sentiment and it is nearing now the top 30. This is an unprecedented level of negative sentiment that requires years and in many cases over a decade for a "bad" video to accomplish.
Remember the "Friday" video by Rebecca Black? It is one of the most disliked online videos ever made (currently around 7th all-time) and it has a negative sentiment percentage of 2.6%, meaning nearly double the people who saw the video disliked it as a function of total viewership.
There's a lot of finger wagger types out there saying the message is great, makes sense, but the numbers are suggesting the exact opposite of that. It appears that what people THINK is a sending a good message, may not actually be doing that at all.
Anyway, our personal opinions are less interesting to me. These types of messages about driving change are important. And it should be more interesting to us about how to effectively communicate important messages than the satisfaction folks seem to get about outraging the other side.
Last edited by ringfinger on Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:28 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loslakersss wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | loslakersss wrote: | | When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things. |
Not a true statement. It doesn’t have to directly impact your life to bother you.
Things happening halfway around the world has no direct impact on my life. Doesn’t mean they don’t bother me. |
Okay, you win. You cherry pick what you want to focus on from other posts and the commercial just to be a contrarian and/or argue in circles.
I will save you the trouble of disagreeing with the above statement and do it for you. Have a nice weekend. |
Hey, you have a nice weekend too! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Are you arguing that a men's facial shaving product should be marketing to non males? Their consumers are men. |
If your target and consumers are only men, and you want to send some kind of moral message - pick one that only applies to men.
|
Their message was directed to men and was specifically about men. Referencing #metoo was simply establishing a context. The message wasn't just "be better", it was "men need to be better". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | loslakersss wrote: | | I didn't say you're reacting the wrong way. I said that people who didn't like the ad (was not talking about you specifically) were focusing on the wrong thing. And that's a pretty simple concept. When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things. |
The question is are those people focusing on the wrong thing or was the message insufficiently conveyed? We can certainly go back and forth on what our personal feelings were about it but that's not all that interesting and usually devolves into snarky one-liners with little meat behind them.
The Kaepernick Nike ad was highly controversial, caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It has 27.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 0.07% meaning of all of the people who watched the video, 0.07% had such an issue with it they felt the need to express their displeasure.
In contrast, the Gillette Ad, also controversial, has also caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably also upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It currently has 20.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 4.9%
There are over 5 billion videos on YouTube. In 3 days, this video managed to crack the top 50 in terms of total negative sentiment and it is nearing now the top 30. This is an unprecedented level of negative sentiment that requires years and in many cases over a decade for a "bad" video to accomplish.
Remember the "Friday" video by Rebecca Black? It is one of the most disliked online videos ever made (currently around 7th all-time) and it has a negative sentiment percentage of 2.6%, meaning nearly double the people who saw the video disliked it as a function of total viewership.
There's a lot of finger wagger types out there saying the message is great, makes sense, but the numbers are suggesting the exact opposite of that. It appears that what people THINK is a sending a good message, may not actually be doing that at all.
Anyway, our personal opinions are less interesting to me. These types of messages about driving change are important. And it should be more interesting to us about how to effectively communicate important messages than the satisfaction folks seem to get about outraging the other side. |
I don't think that it was insufficiently conveyed, but that of course is just an opinion not a fact.
The message seemed quite clear: this is what a lot of men were like, now we need to be better. Don't bully, harass, mansplain, be dismissive of bad behavior (boys will be boys).
The best a man can get was their tagline forever. It was assumed they meant the razor was the best razor a man could get [his hands on]. Now they're giving it a different meaning. The best a man can get [as a person]. And all of us are far from our best, so let's be better. And this is targeted towards men because their ads have always targeted men. And it's a real issue that we have in our country.
I'm not saying that this is the only way to interpret the message, as I've seen from the backlash there is a negative way to interpret it. I see a lot of grown men throwing a fit and getting defensive. And maybe there is something I am missing, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything and would love another perspective. So how do you see the ad? If you have issue with it I would like to know why. Not to tell you you're wrong but to understand a different perspective that isn't so obvious to myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16138
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Are you arguing that a men's facial shaving product should be marketing to non males? Their consumers are men. |
If your target and consumers are only men, and you want to send some kind of moral message - pick one that only applies to men.
|
Their message was directed to men and was specifically about men. Referencing #metoo was simply establishing a context. The message wasn't just "be better", it was "men need to be better". |
I get that. But it’s a universal message that Gillette took and tailored it down to only 1/2 the population.
No other walk of life would that apply other than a Gillette commercial and an all boys group/club/team/gang.
You wouldn’t have the teacher stand in front of a class of boys n girls and give a speech about how only the boys need to be better.
Nothing in that ad/message says that it needed to be narrowed down to men only.
They talked about boys growing up and the mentality of “boys will be boys” and how as men, we have to stop that.
Well, don’t moms need to stop that too? What about teachers when they see boys being boys? Shouldn’t they stop that behavior as well? Aunts? Sisters?
Then they talk about sexual assault? Well, aren’t there sexual assaults involving women?
This is not a male only issue - it’s a universal issue applicable to both males and females.
Gillette just chose to focus on males only. That’s what I have an issue with.
And that’s why my example - if Gillete only made hair products for black
men - then the message would be - only black men need to get better. And I don’t see that going over too kindly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loslakersss wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | loslakersss wrote: | | I didn't say you're reacting the wrong way. I said that people who didn't like the ad (was not talking about you specifically) were focusing on the wrong thing. And that's a pretty simple concept. When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things. |
The question is are those people focusing on the wrong thing or was the message insufficiently conveyed? We can certainly go back and forth on what our personal feelings were about it but that's not all that interesting and usually devolves into snarky one-liners with little meat behind them.
The Kaepernick Nike ad was highly controversial, caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It has 27.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 0.07% meaning of all of the people who watched the video, 0.07% had such an issue with it they felt the need to express their displeasure.
In contrast, the Gillette Ad, also controversial, has also caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably also upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It currently has 20.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 4.9%
There are over 5 billion videos on YouTube. In 3 days, this video managed to crack the top 50 in terms of total negative sentiment and it is nearing now the top 30. This is an unprecedented level of negative sentiment that requires years and in many cases over a decade for a "bad" video to accomplish.
Remember the "Friday" video by Rebecca Black? It is one of the most disliked online videos ever made (currently around 7th all-time) and it has a negative sentiment percentage of 2.6%, meaning nearly double the people who saw the video disliked it as a function of total viewership.
There's a lot of finger wagger types out there saying the message is great, makes sense, but the numbers are suggesting the exact opposite of that. It appears that what people THINK is a sending a good message, may not actually be doing that at all.
Anyway, our personal opinions are less interesting to me. These types of messages about driving change are important. And it should be more interesting to us about how to effectively communicate important messages than the satisfaction folks seem to get about outraging the other side. |
I don't think that it was insufficiently conveyed, but that of course is just an opinion not a fact.
The message seemed quite clear: this is what a lot of men were like, now we need to be better. Don't bully, harass, mansplain, be dismissive of bad behavior (boys will be boys).
The best a man can get was their tagline forever. It was assumed they meant the razor was the best razor a man could get [his hands on]. Now they're giving it a different meaning. The best a man can get [as a person]. And all of us are far from our best, so let's be better. And this is targeted towards men because their ads have always targeted men. And it's a real issue that we have in our country.
I'm not saying that this is the only way to interpret the message, as I've seen from the backlash there is a negative way to interpret it. I see a lot of grown men throwing a fit and getting defensive. And maybe there is something I am missing, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything and would love another perspective. So how do you see the ad? If you have issue with it I would like to know why. Not to tell you you're wrong but to understand a different perspective that isn't so obvious to myself. |
I'm not an outrager, and I'm in the marketing and advertising industry, so I'm pretty desensitized to this stuff. So my personal feeling? Hokey ad campaign (i.e "not cool" who says that?) attempt at latching on to the new woke marketing trend in advertising. Everyone in advertising now wants people to think they're woke.
I assumed there'd be some backlash the first time I saw it, that's pretty obvious considering Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer sparked outrage, but the reaction we have seen so far has been surprising. It's a heck of a lot more than your extreme outrager on the fringes. The negativity is 50x greater than the negativity for the Kaepernick ad. So yeah, great question -- why?
I touched on it a couple pages back, but my feeling is comes down to the execution of the ad. Some pundits within the ad/marketing space are echoing this as well. I think there are two primary problems which boil down to the finger wagging style in which it was shot (which on the other hand will empower finger waggers) and the conflation of traditional masculinity with toxic masculinity.
If you want your target audience to change their behavior, you have to INSPIRE them to do so, not SHAME them into it. Shaming does work sometimes, but it will more often backfire.
On the conflation component. Think of it this way. If the video was simply a PSA about sexual assault being bad for instance -- no one would be upset by it. (Well, maybe a lame few as there always is). But once you put that on the same plane as wanting to talk to an attractive woman or allowing your kids to wrestle, you're going to get a lot of wtf reactions.
It's a short film, like a minute long, so there's a real challenge in telling your story in such a short span of time. Even still, a good lesson from this ad is that how you tell your story may arguably more important than the moral of your story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Are you arguing that a men's facial shaving product should be marketing to non males? Their consumers are men. |
If your target and consumers are only men, and you want to send some kind of moral message - pick one that only applies to men.
|
Their message was directed to men and was specifically about men. Referencing #metoo was simply establishing a context. The message wasn't just "be better", it was "men need to be better". |
I get that. But it’s a universal message that Gillette took and tailored it down to only 1/2 the population.
No other walk of life would that apply other than a Gillette commercial and an all boys group/club/team/gang.
You wouldn’t have the teacher stand in front of a class of boys n girls and give a speech about how only the boys need to be better.
Nothing in that ad/message says that it needed to be narrowed down to men only.
They talked about boys growing up and the mentality of “boys will be boys” and how as men, we have to stop that.
Well, don’t moms need to stop that too? What about teachers when they see boys being boys? Shouldn’t they stop that behavior as well? Aunts? Sisters?
Then they talk about sexual assault? Well, aren’t there sexual assaults involving women?
This is not a male only issue - it’s a universal issue applicable to both males and females.
Gillette just chose to focus on males only. That’s what I have an issue with.
And that’s why my example - if Gillete only made hair products for black
men - then the message would be - only black men need to get better. And I don’t see that going over too kindly |
Gillette is only speaking to their customers. If another brand wants to send the same message to their consumer base, then they can, but it's not up to Gillette to do so and it wouldn't even reach them.
Those Dove commercials a few years ago only spoke to women, but the message was universal. Dove did that because their customers are women.
Hennessy is the most recognized brand in cognac. It's also happens to be popular among black Americans. Thus the brand markets toward that segment of consumers by using NAS as their spokesperson and highlight accomplishments among African Americans. There is no "both sides" to be made here though. They don't have to also highlight European American accomplishments and hire Kid Rock as their spokesperson. And nobody is asking for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
