Gillette's new #metoo advertisement

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/15/opinions/...index.html

Just heard about this earlier tonight. I'm not really keen on advertisers who try to capitalize on political or social issues that have absolutely nothing to do with their product. So, basically, a lot of women get hurt, and companies are like 'hey, we can make money off that.' Yea, it's about ''awareness,'' but it's more about money for these advertisers. However, Nike got it right with Kaepernick (in my view), but Gillette, not so much with this ad. What do you think?

My take, don't capitalize on others' misfortunes. If Gillette were to offer a certain percentage of profits to a particular foundation, charitable organization or special cause, that would be noble. But, if they get a huge boost in sales from this ''campaign,'' is there really a victory in that? I say no. It just comes off as disingenuous, when the underlying motive of the ad is to gain awareness for Gillette.

Nike capitalized on others' misfortunes too. Kaepernick wouldn't have a cause, or the notoriety and endorsement deal, if others didn't suffer misfortune. I assume Nike is profiting from it, and it has nothing to do with their product.

Nike sales booming after Colin Kaepernick ad

So is it really about any of that, or is it just that you agree more with Kaepernick than #MeToo? If you agree with both, what's the difference?


The Gillette ad is just stupid. It shows fathers being the cause of bad behavior when every study done has shown that it's the lack of fathers that is most correlated to the worst behaviors.

(Jan 16, 2019 04:05 AM)Leigha Wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/15/opinions/...index.html

Just heard about this earlier tonight. I'm not really keen on advertisers who try to capitalize on political or social issues that have absolutely nothing to do with their product. So, basically, a lot of women get hurt, and companies are like 'hey, we can make money off that.' Yea, it's about ''awareness,'' but it's more about money for these advertisers. However, Nike got it right with Kaepernick (in my view), but Gillette, not so much with this ad. What do you think?

My take, don't capitalize on others' misfortunes. If Gillette were to offer a certain percentage of profits to a particular foundation, charitable organization or special cause, that would be noble. But, if they get a huge boost in sales from this ''campaign,'' is there really a victory in that? I say no. It just comes off as disingenuous, when the underlying motive of the ad is to gain awareness for Gillette.

Quote:My take, don't capitalize on others' misfortunes.

you are a socialist ?

i am pro universal health care as a main base and only then pro independent private health care after that base has been provided.
rather than the bottom up to throw it all off a cliff method of private 1st then making the tax payers pay 6 times the real cost for the poorest quality health care while millions die of preventable conditions(queue usa system)

big companys have a social responsibility in the modern world.
this is because the people who buy their products which keeps them in business expect it.

im totally anti shameless-profiteering.


speaking of which , while i dont buy apple products i hope apple see the light and add a self imposed recycle cost element to their cell phones tablets & computers to get direct funding to recycle E-waste.
it would be a real game changer in the market place when it is desperately needed.


maybe samsung will do it 1st i hope they do.
someone has to start when the governments fail to act

(Jan 16, 2019 08:39 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: rather than the bottom up to throw it all off a cliff method of private 1st then making the tax payers pay 6 times the real cost for the poorest quality health care while millions die of preventable conditions(queue usa system)

Silly boy, it's only the government subsidizing of healthcare that has artificially driven up costs. Bureaucrats don't care how much stuff costs because it's not their money.

Just like college tuition.

Quote:speaking of which , while i dont buy apple products i hope apple see the light and add a self imposed recycle cost element to their cell phones tablets & computers to get direct funding to recycle E-waste.

Like most socialists, demanding others to pay for things you want while you don't.

(Jan 16, 2019 04:05 AM)Leigha Wrote: ... But, if they get a huge boost in sales from this ''campaign,'' is there really a victory in that? I say no. It just comes off as disingenuous, when the underlying motive of the ad is to gain awareness for Gillette.

Looks like outrage is driving them to other brands instead. Familiar twitter refrains of "being a man is not a disease nor a pathology" and “pathetic virtue-signalling”. Have to wonder about the soundness of preaching about the sin of "toxic masculinity" while standing on the soapbox of a product aimed primarily at male consumers.

I assume Pankaj Bhalla is originally from India, where there are a large number of rapes and crimes against women. Perhaps commodity activism is routine over there, maybe even a requirement in that dense population that adverts periodically double as public service messages. Whatever, it's a tad unexpected that this guy could have actually had semi- or quarter- honest motives for approving the commercial. But nevertheless completely misgauged the skeptical, warring political climate and reaction of the Manosphere in North America.

Making a commercial to win an award at the Emmys or be honorably mentioned at a Woke conference is arguably losing track of the primary purpose of a commercial. (OTOH, I've watched many a conventional commercial that was so wrapped-up in its cute or complex gimmick for hawking _X_ that afterwards I couldn't even recall what it was promoting, the latter was so thoroughly smothered by the former.)

In a perverse or mixed-signals sense, the Gillette Venus commercials have been accused of having a vintage sexist era or Mad Men like air about them.

Shifting back to cynical orientation: Procter & Gamble as a whole have opportunistically outputted other commercials in recent years that tried to score reputation points via issues.

~

(Jan 16, 2019 10:03 AM)C C Wrote:

(Jan 16, 2019 04:05 AM)Leigha Wrote: ... But, if they get a huge boost in sales from this ''campaign,'' is there really a victory in that? I say no. It just comes off as disingenuous, when the underlying motive of the ad is to gain awareness for Gillette.

Looks like outrage is driving them to other brands instead. Familiar twitter refrains of "being a man is not a disease nor a pathology" and “pathetic virtue-signalling”. Have to wonder about the soundness of preaching about the sin of "toxic masculinity" while standing on the soapbox of a product aimed primarily at male consumers.

I assume Pankaj Bhalla is originally from India, where there are a large number of rapes and crimes against women. Perhaps commodity activism is routine over there, maybe even a requirement in that dense population that adverts periodically double as public service messages. Whatever, it's a tad unexpected that this guy could have actually had semi- or quarter- honest motives for approving the commercial. But nevertheless completely misgauged the skeptical, warring political climate and reaction of the Manosphere in North America.

Making a commercial to win an award at the Emmys or be honorably mentioned at a Woke conference is arguably losing track of the primary purpose of a commercial. (OTOH, I've watched many a conventional commercial that was so wrapped-up in its cute or complex gimmick for hawking _X_ that afterwards I couldn't even recall what it was promoting, the latter was so thoroughly smothered by the former.)

In a perverse or mixed-signals sense, the Gillette Venus commercials have been accused of having a vintage sexist era or Mad Men like air about them.

Shifting back to cynical orientation: Procter & Gamble as a whole have opportunistically outputted other commercials in recent years that tried to score reputation points via issues.

~

Quote:(OTOH, I've watched many a conventional commercial that was so wrapped-up in its cute or complex gimmick for hawking _X_ that afterwards I couldn't even recall what it was promoting, the latter was so thoroughly smothered by the former.)

some might argue this is the best result as the subconscious probably recalls the product and assigns it directly to an emotive want leveraged against a need premise of conceptual materialistic association.

the trend toward the power & Helicon-days tech curve tends to directly align to concepts of pediatric base power structure nurture pathology.


it is shameless power distortion proxy morphing of the cross over womens lib 1940s era imagery.


which(via your avatars)... i can see you are well versed in.

... moving on...
it leaves me pondering concepts of gender signaling via acclimatized culture nature as a normative moral position.

diet product/exercise products
the malaise line between sexual self image and self empowerment.
distopianism ? ...hhmm...

(Jan 16, 2019 07:50 AM)Syne Wrote: Nike capitalized on others' misfortunes too. Kaepernick wouldn't have a cause, or the notoriety and endorsement deal, if others didn't suffer misfortune. I assume Nike is profiting from it, and it has nothing to do with their product.

Nike sales booming after Colin Kaepernick ad

So is it really about any of that, or is it just that you agree more with Kaepernick than #MeToo? If you agree with both, what's the difference?


The Gillette ad is just stupid. It shows fathers being the cause of bad behavior when every study done has shown that it's the lack of fathers that is most correlated to the worst behaviors.

Not unusual for Nike to have an athlete represent its product line. In the case of Kaepernick, it just seemed like the perfect time to ''use'' what he was standing for, and weave it into a campaign. It works for me, because Nike thinks outside of the box, and often pushes the envelope. They've had campaigns directed solely at women, which I found to border on the inspiring. Of course, Nike is profiting off of Kaepernick's ''cause'' and while I see your point, they just managed to come across in a classy way.

Gillette's ad just feels disingenuous and is simply piggy backing on the #metoo movement, like so many others. I have my own #metoo stories, so I understand the ''hype'' behind the cause. The problem with the #metoo movement though (in my opinion), is it has created this wave of placing women on pedestals, in the work place. I want my work and worth to be judged solely on the value that my efforts bring to an organization, not that men at the top are now possibly timid to include me in meetings or feel pressure from the media frenzy, to promote me because they fear a potential backlash. I'm not saying this is happening, but I see the ripple effect of the #metoo movement, and friends of mine say it's been happening with them. True equality between the genders doesn't come in the form of men hoisting me up on a pedestal, and garnishing me with praise, simply because I'm a woman and they're trying to ''make up'' for the wayward ways of other men. Like all ''movements,'' it has a tendency to go off the rails, and marginalize another group, in order to promote its interests.


I'm not a socialist, Rainbow. lol I just feel that Gillette's commercial is a glaring example of unbridled capitalism.

(Jan 16, 2019 02:53 PM)Leigha Wrote:

(Jan 16, 2019 07:50 AM)Syne Wrote: Nike capitalized on others' misfortunes too. Kaepernick wouldn't have a cause, or the notoriety and endorsement deal, if others didn't suffer misfortune. I assume Nike is profiting from it, and it has nothing to do with their product.

Nike sales booming after Colin Kaepernick ad

So is it really about any of that, or is it just that you agree more with Kaepernick than #MeToo? If you agree with both, what's the difference?


The Gillette ad is just stupid. It shows fathers being the cause of bad behavior when every study done has shown that it's the lack of fathers that is most correlated to the worst behaviors.

Not unusual for Nike to have an athlete represent its product line. In the case of Kaepernick, it just seemed like the perfect time to ''use'' what he was standing for, and weave it into a campaign. It works for me, because Nike thinks outside of the box, and often pushes the envelope. They've had campaigns directed solely at women, which I found to border on the inspiring. Of course, Nike is profiting off of Kaepernick's ''cause'' and while I see your point, they just managed to come across in a classy way.

Gillette's ad just feels disingenuous and is simply piggy backing on the #metoo movement, like so many others. I have my own #metoo stories, so I understand the ''hype'' behind the cause. The problem with the #metoo movement though (in my opinion), is it has created this wave of placing women on pedestals, in the work place. I want my work and worth to be judged solely on the value that my efforts bring to an organization, not that men at the top are now possibly timid to include me in meetings or feel pressure from the media frenzy, to promote me because they fear a potential backlash. I'm not saying this is happening, but I see the ripple effect of the #metoo movement, and friends of mine say it's been happening with them. True equality between the genders doesn't come in the form of men hoisting me up on a pedestal, and garnishing me with praise, simply because I'm a woman and they're trying to ''make up'' for the wayward ways of other men. Like all ''movements,'' it has a tendency to go off the rails, and marginalize another group, in order to promote its interests.


I'm not a socialist, Rainbow. lol I just feel that Gillette's commercial is a glaring example of unbridled capitalism.

Kaepernick hadn't been a working athlete for quite some time, and Nike did "use" the suffering of others to profit.

So if Gillette becomes known for pushing the envelope, that kind of commercial will be fine with you?
How was Nike's ad not piggybacking on the BLM movement?
Do you agree more with the BLM movement than the #MeToo?

Doesn't the BLM movement have the ripple effects of lowering policing in black neighborhoods and making police second-guess themselves in deadly situations?


Sorry, I still fail to see how one ad is significantly better than the other, except insofar as anyone actually living under a rock might not know Kaepernick's cause and see Nike's pandering.

(Jan 16, 2019 10:03 AM)C C Wrote: Looks like outrage is driving them to other brands instead. Familiar twitter refrains of "being a man is not a disease nor a pathology" and “pathetic virtue-signalling”. Have to wonder about the soundness of preaching about the sin of "toxic masculinity" while standing on the soapbox of a product aimed primarily at male consumers.

That makes me think of how advertisement is likely to start operating like how politicians do prior to elections. No longer will they be able to make statements about how great their product is, what it can do and where it can be done as the advertisements might well give way to being Informercials about their competitors.

Personally advertisement I've always found to be too invasive, for instance you could have a person sat on a street corner asking for pennies so the can eat sat in front of a billboard identifying a particular brand of fastfood meal known for not being particular filling with a giant burger picture. The imagery can leave those in lesser states wanting more and wanting what they can't afford and this can drive people to extremes in trying to obtain the unobtainable.

In short advertisements are a "Grass is Green" picture and posted over the visible side of the ugly looking fence.

(Jan 16, 2019 06:20 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Jan 16, 2019 02:53 PM)Leigha Wrote:

(Jan 16, 2019 07:50 AM)Syne Wrote: Nike capitalized on others' misfortunes too. Kaepernick wouldn't have a cause, or the notoriety and endorsement deal, if others didn't suffer misfortune. I assume Nike is profiting from it, and it has nothing to do with their product.

Nike sales booming after Colin Kaepernick ad

So is it really about any of that, or is it just that you agree more with Kaepernick than #MeToo? If you agree with both, what's the difference?


The Gillette ad is just stupid. It shows fathers being the cause of bad behavior when every study done has shown that it's the lack of fathers that is most correlated to the worst behaviors.

Not unusual for Nike to have an athlete represent its product line. In the case of Kaepernick, it just seemed like the perfect time to ''use'' what he was standing for, and weave it into a campaign. It works for me, because Nike thinks outside of the box, and often pushes the envelope. They've had campaigns directed solely at women, which I found to border on the inspiring. Of course, Nike is profiting off of Kaepernick's ''cause'' and while I see your point, they just managed to come across in a classy way.

Gillette's ad just feels disingenuous and is simply piggy backing on the #metoo movement, like so many others. I have my own #metoo stories, so I understand the ''hype'' behind the cause. The problem with the #metoo movement though (in my opinion), is it has created this wave of placing women on pedestals, in the work place. I want my work and worth to be judged solely on the value that my efforts bring to an organization, not that men at the top are now possibly timid to include me in meetings or feel pressure from the media frenzy, to promote me because they fear a potential backlash. I'm not saying this is happening, but I see the ripple effect of the #metoo movement, and friends of mine say it's been happening with them. True equality between the genders doesn't come in the form of men hoisting me up on a pedestal, and garnishing me with praise, simply because I'm a woman and they're trying to ''make up'' for the wayward ways of other men. Like all ''movements,'' it has a tendency to go off the rails, and marginalize another group, in order to promote its interests.


I'm not a socialist, Rainbow. lol I just feel that Gillette's commercial is a glaring example of unbridled capitalism.

Kaepernick hadn't been a working athlete for quite some time, and Nike did "use" the suffering of others to profit.

So if Gillette becomes known for pushing the envelope, that kind of commercial will be fine with you?
How was Nike's ad not piggybacking on the BLM movement?
Do you agree more with the BLM movement than the #MeToo?

Doesn't the BLM movement have the ripple effects of lowering policing in black neighborhoods and making police second-guess themselves in deadly situations?


Sorry, I still fail to see how one ad is significantly better than the other, except insofar as anyone actually living under a rock might not know Kaepernick's cause and see Nike's pandering.

I don't care what you think, sorry not sorry.