Do you have sons? Show them this..... (1 Viewer)

The message in the video is good. Be a man, show your men in training the right way to treat people. I didn't see much more in it than that. When Kotex and Secret show the same message about women leading girls in an ad, I'll be impressed.

As long as we are not pretending Gillette is now some rectitudinous corporation, I think we are ok.

View attachment 237494

I would never pretend any company, person, animal, vegetable, or mineral, is rectitudinous, as it took me several minutes just to find out what it means, and even longer to figure out how to pronounce it.

But yes, marketing companies will use sex, fear, jealousy, etc., or any other tool in their arsenal to convince us to buy stuff. If it happens to appeal to the more noble attributes of humanity, it's all the same to them.
 
My problem with the ad is that it is blatant pandering.
I guess I kinda see all commercials as some form of pandering - all of them are doing whatever they can to sell you something. As @Beakertwang said, "marketing companies will use sex, fear, jealousy, etc., or any other tool in their arsenal to convince us to buy stuff. If it happens to appeal to the more noble attributes of humanity, it's all the same to them." I'd rather that advertisements didn't much exist at all, but there's no free lunch. We're going to be sold to. As for a company "not actually caring" about social issues - and extending it out to corporate charity and philanthropy in general - I'd argue that no company *actually* cares beyond what any of their advertising and charity will do to bring them more business and/or get them tax deductions/credits. The vast majority of corprorations in the US have their charity/community service/philanthropy efforts under one of two divisions - marketing or accounting. Once I realized this I became very jaded towards all advertising and corporate community service in general. Rare is the company that is philanthropic for philanthropy's sake - and if they are, "no good deed goes unpunished." That said, I'd rather have messages like Gillette's anti-bullying ad vs puppy-monkey-baby (personal preference, I guess), and companies donating time and money rather than not. As consumers we just always have to be aware of what it is underneath - an attempt to please the owners of the comapny, whomever they may be, by way of ultimately achieving greater profits.


It assumes boys/men are a problem that need to be corrected. This is an awful message, especially for young men.
I've seen that message out there in various aspects of the media and progressive movements. I don't see it being assummed nor conveyed in this particular ad, though. I agree that making men - and particularly young men - feel lesser or wrong because of their feelings and natural desires is a concern. I have no issues with calling out specific problem behaviors, though, and that's what I perceive this ad (in addition to selling a product) to be doing.

I'm going to assume that two of the traits you're referring to in boys/men that are elsewhere conveyed as problematic are agression and a sexual desires/attractions (my sincerest apologies if I've made an incorrect assumption). Agression in men isn't inherently a bad thing, but it becomes an issue when it manifests inappropriately. There's no problem with aggression on a sports field, in business mergers and acquisitions, etc, but there is a problem when it manifests as physically assaulting someone, particularly because they're smaller, or weird, or "other". Similarly, there's nothing wrong with men's attraction and sexual desires towards others (assuming they're not pedophilic or incestuous in nature, etc). Those desires, however, become an issue when we start touching people when and where they don't care to be touched, or when we make disrespectful and/or unwanted, repetitive advances in general. The distinction in both is that it's not the man's nature which is at issue, but specific behaviors. The ad wasn't saying men are wrong if they have an agressive nature, but it did specifically target bullying. It didn't say men were wrong for being attracted to someone, but it did call out sexual harrassment. There's a distinction there, and I believe that distinction to be significant.


A woman’s choice of what she wears isn’t objectification.
Agreed, what women want to wear is their business...

But a company who slaps their logo on the back of said clothing/uniform is guilty of objectifying women?
In the case of Gillette and that blue latex body suit, it's 100% the very definition of it - they're using the woman's ass to sell a product. The difference here is the adult women are fully aware of what they're doing and are complicit with it, and/or are okay with the type of attention they're receiving. See also: professional cheerleaders. These women know their bodies are being used as platforms for the express purpose of advertisement and are complicit in such engagements.

This came up not long ago on Real Sports on HBO. The owner of a professional darts league in England stopped using their version of ring/round babes because he - and his viewers - felt it was needless objectification of women. His viewers resoundingly approved, although at least one of the women being used in this manner wasn't too keen on the changes seeing as how she now needed to find work elsewhere. Then they juxtaposed that with NFL cheerleaders, and interviewed the coach of the Broncos cheer squad who claimed cheerleading was an NFL team's way to celebrate strong, empowered women just like the football competition is a way to celebrate strong, athletic men, and not a form of exploitation (both the interviewer and Bryant Gumbel expressed doubts over how NFL team owners viewed the purpose of the cheerleaders, as do I).
 
This reminds me of the Pepsi commercial that came out a while ago. They had all the elements that they thought young people wanted to see.
Some element of social justice with the setting being a riot. They made sure the cast was diverse with regards to gender, religion, and race. To me it just comes off as forced and corny.


But then on the other hand I am not the target audience for ads like this. Maybe you are right that kids will internalize all this messaging and make society better.

I recall hearing about the controversy of the Pepsi ad when it came out... I didn't watch the ad then. Just watched it now... I'm thinking whats the big deal. Sure its forced and corny, but why were people mad about it? Was Pepsi insensitive to current social issues... trivializing the struggle... Pfff.
 
Maybe I am just a cynical curmudgeon.

Advertising, by its very nature, is cynical. It's sole purpose is to illicit an emotional reaction to motivate you to part ways with your hard earned dollars.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

When you are able to get consumers to spend money and/or create brand loyalty rooted in emotion and not logic/reason, then the ad company behind said advertising has already won.

We can't really blame them for knowing more about human nature than we do. I'm sure they have far more psychological data than the casinos (no windows, no clocks, loud noises, etc.) when it comes to this kind of psychological/emotional stuff.
 
Thanks for the reminder @CraigT78 , been meaning to watch this ad but had forgotten.

I think the message is good, regardless of what you think the objective of the company behind it is.

Of course I want bullying to decrease and I want women to be treated with respect. I think we all want society to get better. We all want racism to stop.

Man, I wish I could believe this but I still think there are just a bunch of shitty people out there in this world.

I would never pretend any company, person, animal, vegetable, or mineral, is rectitudinous, as it took me several minutes just to find out what it means, and even longer to figure out how to pronounce it.

Lol, me too. TIL!
 
Advertising, by its very nature, is cynical. It's sole purpose is to illicit an emotional reaction to motivate you to part ways with your hard earned dollars.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

When you are able to get consumers to spend money and/or create brand loyalty rooted in emotion and not logic/reason, then the ad company behind said advertising has already won.

We can't really blame them for knowing more about human nature than we do. I'm sure they have far more psychological data than the casinos (no windows, no clocks, loud noises, etc.) when it comes to this kind of psychological/emotional stuff.

Sure then color me a confounded idealist.

We have traversed from "sex sells" to "social issues" sells. I think there is more ethically wrong with using "social issues" as a sales tactic than simply showing some leg.

Issues like racism and misogyny are real societal problems and for advertisers to trivialize them for profit is reprehensible.
 
We have traversed from "sex sells" to "social issues" sells. I think there is more ethically wrong with using "social issues" as a sales tactic than simply showing some leg.

Issues like racism and misogyny are real societal problems and for advertisers to trivialize them for profit is reprehensible.

I wish I would have said this.
 
Sure then color me a confounded idealist.

We have traversed from "sex sells" to "social issues" sells. I think there is more ethically wrong with using "social issues" as a sales tactic than simply showing some leg.

Issues like racism and misogyny are real societal problems and for advertisers to trivialize them for profit is reprehensible.

Hey - I'm not judging - just pointing out the realities of advertising.

If you're already at a point where you can look at most advertising, roll your eyes, and ignore it - while doing your own research to objectively determine whether or not the company/product demonstrates a value-add to your life, you're well ahead of 90% of the population. So hat's off to ya! (y) :thumbsup:
 
Hey - I'm not judging - just pointing out the realities of advertising.

If you're already at a point where you can look at most advertising, roll your eyes, and ignore it - while doing your own research to objectively determine whether or not the company/product demonstrates a value-add to your life, you're well ahead of 90% of the population. So hat's off to ya! (y) :thumbsup:

I respect your opinion and acknowledge you are right. It just saddens me that we have reached what seems like a new low.
 
I respect your opinion and acknowledge you are right. It just saddens me that we have reached what seems like a new low.

Can't say I disagree with you.

We have traversed from "sex sells" to "social issues" sells. I think there is more ethically wrong with using "social issues" as a sales tactic than simply showing some leg.

But, let's be honest, is this any different from anything we've seen over the last 70 years?

If some one bought/smoked a Marlboro in the 80's because they related to the "tough guy" image of the Marlboro Man, whelp, in my opinion, they are a complete moron.

Similarly, if some one buys a Gillette razor because they relate to the new ad campaign and consider themselves "a woke AF warrior for the female cause," whelp, in my opinion, they are a complete moron too.

To quote P.T. Barnum, "there's a sucker born every minute." In this day and age, probable tens of thousands every minute. And as Canada Bill Jones said, "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."

Can't blame Gillette for knowing their suckers customers.
 
I have to agree that it seems that Gillette are just jumping on the bandwagon with this advert. That being said, I can certainly see why @CraigT78 wouls show it to his sons.

That whole Pepsi deal was complete and utter bullshit though. What an embarrassment, they are selling unhealthy sugary drinks, so many lols.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel though, modern tv and streaming options allow me to fast forward through the adverts.
 
And I say that as someone who only buys Gillette safety razor blades, now that I no longer use a straight razor. Gillette is a scummy company, but this ad is spot on.
 
Can't say I disagree with you.



But, let's be honest, is this any different from anything we've seen over the last 70 years?

If some one bought/smoked a Marlboro in the 80's because they related to the "tough guy" image of the Marlboro Man, whelp, in my opinion, they are a complete moron.

Similarly, if some one buys a Gillette razor because they relate to the new ad campaign and consider themselves "a woke AF warrior for the female cause," whelp, in my opinion, they are a complete moron too.

To quote P.T. Barnum, "there's a sucker born every minute." In this day and age, probable tens of thousands every minute. And as Canada Bill Jones said, "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."

Can't blame Gillette for knowing their suckers customers.

I see your point. Advertising has always just been manipulation. I knew this of course and even took some introductory business/advertising courses in University. It just seemed more innocent back in the day.

Selling axe body spray and connecting that to getting girls was silly but obviously effective. We all knew it was silly and even teenagers knew it was silly. There was no guy that applied axe and walked out the door expecting pussy to rain down from the heavens.

However, this new wave of advertising is actually misrepresenting the companies values. That is what i think brings it lower ethically than before. Perhaps nothing can top the deception and damage of tobacco companies so there is that.
 
As a father of two I can tell you that my kids are NOT glued to social media or YouTube. They arent even allowed to be on social media and their tu YouTube time is strictly monitored and limited.

Is that easy? Of course not but being a responsible parent isn't supposed to be.
 
Shaving company marketing aside, how is your daughter doing @CraigT78? I know you said she's blown it off, and it sounds like she is a tough kid, but no one should have to deal with that. I'm sorry that happened.
Thanks bro - she is fine. G\She's glad the kid was removed from her class (permanently), and understandably creeped out, but otherwise all is well. It made for an interesting dinner conversation (No Dylan, you aren't going to beat his ass on Monday :p)
 
As a father of two I can tell you that my kids are NOT glued to social media or YouTube. They arent even allowed to be on social media and their tu YouTube time is strictly monitored and limited.

Is that easy? Of course not but being a responsible parent isn't supposed to be.
I don't know how old your children are, or if they have their own phones, but I can tell you that unless you keep your kids in a cave - they are on or viewing all things social media.
 
So I finally got around to the video. I don't hate it, but it comes across a bit sophomoric, sort of like one of those skits a church youth group would put on, but with a $1M budget. (The Kendall Jenner Pepsi commercial makes this look like poignant social commentary, by comparison.) It's also rather pandering. Despite my cynicism regarding the intents and methods of politics, business, and media, it certainly won't hurt to teach men-to-be to take care of others.


I also take issue with a couple of boys scuffling over a backyard game being lumped in with objectifying women. There's "toxic masculinity" and there's immature masculinity, and both are learned.
 
I also take issue with a couple of boys scuffling over a backyard game being lumped in with objectifying women.
I don't think the intent was to lump together - but to cover both the treatment of women and anti-bullying in one message. But that's just my take on it, YMMV.
 
I don't think the intent was to lump together - but to cover both the treatment of women and anti-bullying in one message. But that's just my take on it, YMMV.
Fair enough. At any rate, it does come across somewhat disingenuous.

And possibly rectitudinous. I can't be sure.
 
I see your point. Advertising has always just been manipulation. I knew this of course and even took some introductory business/advertising courses in University. It just seemed more innocent back in the day.

Selling axe body spray and connecting that to getting girls was silly but obviously effective. We all knew it was silly and even teenagers knew it was silly. There was no guy that applied axe and walked out the door expecting pussy to rain down from the heavens.

However, this new wave of advertising is actually misrepresenting the companies values. That is what i think brings it lower ethically than before. Perhaps nothing can top the deception and damage of tobacco companies so there is that.

I understand that the corporate philosphophy was not the OP original purpose.

Everyone knows that companies are profit oriented. Every single one of them.

It is not bad to have a company spend money advancing a socially conscious goal, even if they don't disclaim that they are doing it just to sell razor blades.
 
My comments have nothing to do with the ad or about what happened.

I just got to say, this “theme” of the anti-white male movement is cancerous. It’s misguided and going to backfire.

Where there is smoke there is fire, and this movement stemmed from something, I get it. But if a minorty of powerful men abused their power and took advantage of women around them, it doesn’t mean that goes for the nation as a whole or it’s an epidemic....

Its an agenda. A narrative, presented and reinforced by the what claim to be less than credible media companies. These “news” networks are nothing more than propaganda machines. They started the fire, and keep pouring the gasoline on it for profits/ratings/eye balls. It’s disgusting and affecting real people’s lives. Its shaping the nation as time goes by. Its changing the way we think (and not in a good way). Its dividing us. It’s dangerous.

My only hope is that people can start think for themselves and disconnect from these ideas that are being programmed into you. You decide what’s right or wrong. Not your peers. Not CNN. Not Twitter. Not some BS op ed or talking head on TV. You decide.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom