Dollar Shave Club for the win
No shave club for the win imo
Dollar Shave Club for the win
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 have no idea who Lisa Ann is, and I'm not sure I want to google that.Apparently Lisa Ann thinks guys with big vocabularies are hot. So I've been working on mine.
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.My problem with the ad is that it is blatant pandering.
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.It assumes boys/men are a problem that need to be corrected. This is an awful message, especially for young men.
Agreed, what women want to wear is their business...A woman’s choice of what she wears isn’t objectification.
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.But a company who slaps their logo on the back of said clothing/uniform is guilty of objectifying women?
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.
Maybe I am just a cynical curmudgeon.
Wait, are we talking about advertising or William Kassouf?It's sole purpose is to illicit an emotional reaction to motivate you to part ways with your hard earned dollars.
Wait, are we talking about advertising or William Kassouf?
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.
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.
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.
Wait, are we talking about advertising or William Kassouf?
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.
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:
I respect your opinion and acknowledge you are right. It just saddens me that we have reached what seems like a new low.
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.
It assumes boys/men are a problem that need to be corrected. This is an awful message, especially for young men.
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 theirsuckerscustomers.
The irony was intended, right?Apparently Lisa Ann thinks guys with big vocabularies are hot. So I've been working on mine.
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 )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.
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.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 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 also take issue with a couple of boys scuffling over a backyard game being lumped in with objectifying women.
Fair enough. At any rate, it does come across somewhat disingenuous.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 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.