Special K,Activia and other products aimed at women that pisses you off!

MelonieHead

It has become more socially acceptable for men to care about their apparance, for example in fashion and skincare but there are still some things which haven't quite gotten there yet.

Diet foods are usually aimed at women. Even soft drinks - we have Coke, Diet Coke and Coke Zero, because a man couldn't be seen drinking a Diet Coke. Then again, that may have to do with their ad campaign. The soft drink markety is catching up though, there is Sprite Zero but no Diet Sprite.

Nevyn

Pepsi Max is the diet version of Pepsi.
Once again Pepsi proves it's superiority

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

Alrighty then!

We have to look at capitalism as a tool, not as an aim in and of itself. What are capitalism and free markets supposed to do for us? There is something decidedly religious about the most purist followers of the free market and their conviction that the Smith's invisible hand will make everything work out great for everyone. Indeed, the concept of the free market is based on two things that don't exist: perfect information and perfectly rational human beings. In fact, I would argue that most advertising these days is an attempt to attack both of these premises.

Free market purists are dreamers, i will agree with you there. That doesn't exactly mean that Free Market is a bad thing. It LOOKS like a bad thing at times, as it seems to favour the big guy over the little guy, but the big guy started out small too. They just worked their way up in the system.

I will agree with you that the foundations of the concept are based in dream land, but if you base the concept on other things, it can work. I think what most people here would like to see is a more ethical nature to big business. I think that has been happening quite a bit over the last few years. And it's not all a front and done for PR. People are basically the key. If you want to change something it is easier and more logical to change it from within, than from the outside. At some point, a lot of very clever people here will be in positions to actually affect a very positive change...the way to win is to actually do it when you get a chance.

The CEO of the company i work for, i actually have great time for. He took on the company at a harsh time, facing into a recession. He enforced value messages that actually meant something and instigated a whole new "green" policy for the business. We are still operating with a few to profit, but that is essential in business or you won't be around long but there is also a lot more money being pumped back into the customer, being put into Charity, being put into environmental issues.

He is just a guy who went to college and ended up being a CEO and is now using his position to affect a positive change. We can all do the same when the time is right, but we need to do it WITHIN the system.

The brass tax of capatilism and free market are that you put the work in and you get the reward. What we really need are more people who are willing to work, genuinely, to make things better.

I have very little time for free loving hippies who talk about the ills of society and capatilism while cashing their dole cheque, i have very little time for big businesses who take complete advantage of their position but generate jobs and money for the public sector. A marrying of the two is the way to go.

Ethical and Sound Business Practice.

I know, it sounds like a dream.

Let's look at perfect information. It has been proven that make up companies use false eyelashes, ridiculous amounts of photoshopping and other tricks to enhance the appearance of the changes their products can bring about (Have your clothes ever come out of the washing machine that white? Did your eyelashes ever extend out like Eva Longoria's when you used L'Oreal's mascara?) So advertising isn't just about making someone aware of your product anymore: it's about convincing them that it is capable of carrying out some magical, impossible transformation. This takes us further away from the truth and further away from the 1st tenet of the markets: good, if not perfect, information.

If you are trying to sell something you make it shiney. It's one of the old rules. You find the appeal to the most people and run with it. If you want to change advertising you need to change people. You need to get more people to ask questions, investigate the spin and look beyound it. It's not something you can force on people, but it's something you can affect. Enough people demanding the same thing will get it, but only if you ask in the right voice.

It is very possible to change advertising standards to demand actual representation of the product, but we need a lot of people who are willing to send an email or make a phone call. This is not pie in the sky thinking, this is basic numbers.

This all falls back to brand, and our power as a consumer. At the end of the day, my money is my money, and i vote with it. I don't shop in places with poor customer service, i try and support companies that i feel are run ethically. Sure, i also buy the "other" products out of my own choice but at the very least i try and do a small bit and affect a small change.

I like Free Market because the power essentially lies with the consumer. Support what you like with your money. It once again leads us back to the question, are people happy and are we the minority?

Now for the rational being. There's no doubt about it: advertising works. Why does it work? Because advertisers spend millions on figuring out the intricacies and quirks of human psychology precisely so that they can exploit them. Advertisers seek out the most instinctive, the most basic and the most irrational of our compulses in order to manipulate us into buying their product. Feeling too fat? Buy Special K. Feeling sexually inadequate? Buy this aftershave. etc etc. In this way, advertising preys on our naturally occuring insecurities and works hard to magnify them, creating some of the most irrational behaviour possible (eg, people spending ridiculous amounts of money on clothes/shoes/cars/..basically consuming to the point where they end up doing damage to themselves through running up huge debt). So advertising is predicated not on our the rational side of our psychology, but the irrational side.

Spot on, you understanding of advertising is leagues ahead of most people i talk to. It works on fear.

In the end we have to ask ourselves: is this advertising doing us any damage? Are more kids smoking, are more young people feeling insecure about our bodies, are more people drinking as a result of this advertising? Are negative stereotypes of men, women, old people, young people, fat, thin, gay, black, asian people being perpetuated by this advertising? If you want to be really selfish about it, you can ask how much is this really costing us as a society economically? Sure more people buy cigarettes today but who ends up paying for the triple bypass in 30 years time? I think it's important to remember that the economy is an instrument for bettering the lives of people, not an end-goal and that the markets should work for us, not the other way around.

In all honesty, we have far more to worry about with regards to the negative affects mentioned than advertising. Every contact point is trying to influence us one way or another. The key, as you said, is the message that the economy should work for us, not us for it. The only way to affect the changes we need to make, are at the top and work down, at the bottom and work up, and meet in the middle.

An individual person has a lot of power, from the opinions you express to the way you vote, to what you watch, eat and do. I think it's reminding poeple of that power, in an affective way, that will lead to the greatest change.

One of the worst things to happen to humans, and it's a great way to keep us all in line, is that we are all "different" and "individual". It's a great way to make us feel special, but powerless at the same time. "Yeah, no one else is like me, but i am only one man"....they go hand in hand.

None of us are alone, there are literally millions of people in the world who share our views, opinions and dreams. That is a lot of power, a lot of say.

All systems are open to corruption, the way to stem the tide is to get more people with the "correct" ethics and moral mindset into the system to change it back.

However, the opens the "correct" ethics can of worms.

tallaght01

bluewolf wrote: »

But it has latin important sounding sciency stuff in it! And "immune"! It must be good for you! :eek:


I love the "immunofortis" ones too. Hey guys, what sounds all important AND good for you that we can emphasise in our ads??

It's mental isn't it. None of it has ever been shown to be realistically useful, except in a few punters with stomach problems.

Thaedydal wrote: »

FSS there is serious research done and being done if you want to fry and argue that and that a swollen prostrate is comparable to a swollen womb :rolleyes: then go to the bio medical forum or the long term illness forum and read up there about IBS being suspect auto immune.

This thread is about how advertising preys on and perpetuates women being
unhappy with themselves to sell them stuff and how gendered certain types of advertising is.

You won't get many people who are actually involved in healthcare agreeing that it's likely autoimmune.
Most of the decent data suggests it's neuroendocrine, which is why women get it most. That's why women are targetted with rubbish that claim to help symptoms of IBS.
Nothing sinister about it, just benjamins.

My dad says free market and closed economies all produce the same endpoint....some really really rich people, some really really poor people, and most somewhere in the middle. Other policy is much more important. I think he was onto something.

Wibbs

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's mental isn't it. None of it has ever been shown to be realistically useful, except in a few punters with stomach problems.

Yea and from what I gather, the bacteria are killed by the stomach acids long before they get to where they're supposed to be needed. So unless you've a long tube and an enema fetish.....

Read a brilliant article in Discover a while back on this very subject of the bacteria that live in all of us. Amazing little symbiotic ecosystem we all have going on. They vary between people too. We all have our own personal ecosystem of these fellas and they can vary in their effect too. The H pylori bacteria is the one implicated in stomach ulcers, yet in other parts of the world were ulcers are rare everyone has them.

When all is balanced, we look after them and they look after us. One even triggers the correct development of blood vessels in the bowel soon after we're born. They break down food, produce Vit B12 and K and metabolise bile acids. They'll even swap genetic info between different species of bacteria if a dodgy pathogen comes along, if one of them figures a way to defend against it. Of course they also swap info on antibiotic resistance which is not so good. There's one(whose long name escapes. something theta IIRC) that triggers immune responses if anything dodgy shows up. Makes sure the turn over of cells in the gut wall is regulated. One thing it also does, which may play a part in obesity, is that it sends signals to fat cells to hang on to fat. Apparently it's happy eating whatever you're having, but if you starve yourself, it starts to chomp on mucus in the gut, but it's not so keen on that, so signals the fat cells to grow and may signal your brain to start eating more. Amazing. Just sitting here all of us have this hugely wonderfully complex stuff going on, that we're not really aware of. There's even some theories out tehre that suggest they play an even bigger role than even what we've figured out already.

I reckon all those yoghurt drinks do is supply sugars and fats to the bunch of boyos already in your body. I wouldn't be surprised to find that our own bunch of bacteria kill any left over from the stomach acid. Probably think they're interlopers. "Oi Yakult, sod off. You can't come in here in those shoes all European and poncy".:D So I don't bother with those things at all.

Same goes for the reproductive system. Lactobacillus(sp) keeps the vagina slightly acidic and in good order. They get outa whack and acidity drops and you get thrush and other issues. Like Thaedydal's example of douches making things way worse. You interfere with these ecosystems at your peril

My dad says free market and closed economies all produce the same endpoint....some really really rich people, some really really poor people, and most somewhere in the middle. Other policy is much more important. I think he was onto something.

Very true. Your dad's defo onto something there. Every ism I can think of starts off fine and sounds great in theory, but human nature being what it is, it soon enough goes into the heirarchy your dad describes.

Dragan wrote:

I have very little time for free loving hippies who talk about the ills of society and capatilism while cashing their dole cheque, i have very little time for big businesses who take complete advantage of their position but generate jobs and money for the public sector. A marrying of the two is the way to go.

QFT

mooncatsmum

What about all these crappy cholesterol lowering spreads and stuff? I was given a diet sheet by my doc recomending all this factory made crap to lower by cholesterol BUT in small print it said very little of what I ate made any difference to my chol level???
So the professionals are being taken in by the ads too?
Discuss:D

The Sweeper

MelonieHead wrote: »

Diet foods are usually aimed at women. Even soft drinks - we have Coke, Diet Coke and Coke Zero, because a man couldn't be seen drinking a Diet Coke. Then again, that may have to do with their ad campaign. The soft drink markety is catching up though, there is Sprite Zero but no Diet Sprite.

The coke zero billboards had just gone up on the tube when I left London two years ago. The imagery in the campaign was all about "what you want and what you don't want, as a young trendy bloke". There were a lot of silhouette images, and one of the images involved a man, shackled by the ankle wearing a ball and chain, with a woman hanging out of him.

Jesus, that ad pissed me off like nothing else.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote:

Same goes for the reproductive system. Lactobacillus(sp) keeps the vagina slightly acidic and in good order.

you're supposed to eat the yoghurt :eek:



Has anyone done a study on over use of female hygiene products and other stuff that could potentially do more harm than good ?

LightningBolt

Wibbs wrote: »

Very true. Your dad's defo onto something there. Every ism I can think of starts off fine and sounds great in theory, but human nature being what it is, it soon enough goes into the heirarchy your dad describes.

Didn't Orwell write about that in 1984. Every society has three rungs, the upper class with everything, middle class wanting to be the upper class with new policies/methods, lower class with very little. It never changes in structure.

Faith

mooncatsmum wrote: »

What about all these crappy cholesterol lowering spreads and stuff? I was given a diet sheet by my doc recomending all this factory made crap to lower by cholesterol BUT in small print it said very little of what I ate made any difference to my chol level???
So the professionals are being taken in by the ads too?
Discuss:D

Products like Benecol contain plant sterols, which do lower your LDL cholesterol levels (LDL cholesterol is the bad stuff). They do do what they say they do,in this case, if eaten daily.

Blisterman

Well there definitely is a difference in taste between Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max, and Diet Coke and Coke Zero. Anyone saying they're the same thing in different packages is wrong.

Coke Zero tastes more like Regular Coca Cola, than Diet Coke.
Pepsi max has more bitterness off the sweetener than Diet Pepsi, I find.

Joey the lips

Nothing beats real coke or real pepsi forget your diet just drink less. Diet drinks are like sex without an orgasim what use is it

bnagrrl

I hate ads for skin care creams and things that have blatantly made up words in them.

"It contains youthifying properties to help combat the seven signs of aging."

Macha

Sorry didn't reply sooner -been busy!

Dragan wrote: »

I like Free Market because the power essentially lies with the consumer. Support what you like with your money. It once again leads us back to the question, are people happy and are we the minority?

OK I know what you're saying but really? I don't think there is a big backlash about the power of advertising and other issues with consumption because
a) people are ignorant of the issues and
b) people are lazy/selfish etc etc (I know that sounds harsh but it's true and most importantly
c) the consumer is not given all the information necessary

Take the issue of palm oil, for example. The habitat of orangutans in Indonesia is being cut down at an alarming rate to clear land for palm oil plantations. The species is under serious threat and it's really down to you and me buying products with palm oil in them at the supermarket. IMO, the reason this happens is, as above:
a) a lot of people genuinely aren't aware of the problem
b) don't look at the list of ingredients on their products or can't be bothered
c) palm oil is often listed simply as 'vegetable oil' in an attempt to disguise it as an ingredient

So as much as I believe in people power, I don't know whether I believe in it enough (nor do I think we have enough time left with some issues) to leave it up to Paddy and Mary to:
a) educate themselves
b) care enough or
c) see through the ploys/hype/PR/advertising of companies

I mean look at this as an example of "greenwashing" for BP:

The commentary from context.org is pretty good:

What I think is especially remarkable about this example is how entirely free of any content it manages to be. The commercial combines pretty colors, animation, babies, cute music, and whistling gas pumps. That alone, apparently, is effective in convincing us that BP is environmentally benign. It is pure emotion, completely devoid of an argument.

Or look at the difference between these websites for Degree deoderant for men and women:





This one is just OMG amazing!!



That is the sort of multi-million dollar tripe that you and I are up against. I don't think it's a fair fight.

JC 2K3

But leaving it up to people to simply "care more" or "educate themselves" just doesn't work. When looking at issues like this, I think you have to look at everything from a high level and just assume everyone is a mindless drone.

In a capitalist system with the majority being well off, money dictates everything. If something affects someone's pocket, they'll care, otherwise they probably won't.

When people have less money, they tend to care about these things more, probably because they can't simply buy things to make them feel better about themselves and rid them of their caring or concerns.

Nevyn

taconnol wrote: »

Take the issue of palm oil, for example. The habitat of orangutans in Indonesia is being cut down at an alarming rate to clear land for palm oil plantations. The species is under serious threat and it's really down to you and me buying products with palm oil in them at the supermarket. IMO, the reason this happens is, as above:
a) a lot of people genuinely aren't aware of the problem
b) don't look at the list of ingredients on their products or can't be bothered
c) palm oil is often listed simply as 'vegetable oil' in an attempt to disguise it as an ingredient

Lush removed palm oil from all their products and ran an education month on this.

Macha

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But leaving it up to people to simply "care more" or "educate themselves" just doesn't work. When looking at issues like this, I think you have to look at everything from a high level and just assume everyone is a mindless drone.

True. While I really, really want to have faith in people to do the right thing, ultimately I'm not comfortable with the idea of leaving the fate of the orangutans in the hands of Paddy and Mary down at Tesco. Similarly, I don't think advertising standards are going to change through people power..perhaps through lobby groups led by strongly active individuals.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

In a capitalist system with the majority being well off, money dictates everything. If something affects someone's pocket, they'll care, otherwise they probably won't.

Exactly. Businesses are experts at externalising costs to the rest of society, employees, suppliers and the local environment. The only reason most businesses internalise costs (and ultimately pass them onto us as you would expect) is by law. It is quite unusual for a business to do it voluntarily, like Lush as Thaedydal mentioned.

And even when companies make a song and dance about their ethical stance on something, I'm extremely cynical of their efforts. For example, I'd say a lot of you have seen this Dove ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=321Kb8pBu5s

Well done blah blah..but what isn't obvious to the viewer is that Dove is owned by Unilever, a parent company that also owns Lynx (or Axe, as it's known in the US). And this Dove ad actually uses some sexist images from Axe's ads! It's pathetic.

tallaght01

LightningBolt wrote: »

Didn't Orwell write about that in 1984. Every society has three rungs, the upper class with everything, middle class wanting to be the upper class with new policies/methods, lower class with very little. It never changes in structure.

I was too young to understand 1984 proerly when I read it, but I think Orwell's middle and upper class only made up about 10% of the population. The rest were dirt poor.

More like capitalism during a recession

I just wanted to add that I'm eating a bowl of special k now. I don't give a flyin mickey about it's calorific content. It's the best tasting cereal ever

The Sweeper

Yeah but I'll bet you're eating a proper bowl of it, not "as much as you can grab with one fist, in a catfood-sized bowl with 50mls of zero fat pale blue milk".

I'd buy Special K, but I'm sure I'm not supposed to eat a stew-bowlful that empties a quarter of the packet in a single sitting.

Agent Smith

panda100 wrote: »

I used to love Yorkie bars,used to get the nut and raisin one all the time. Now I purposefully dont buy it because I find 'its not for girls' quite offensive. I mean wtf does is that suggesting about us 'girls'? Il just go back to eating my activia that tastes like bland nothingness and my little bits of cardboard special k so!

i never before believed that a woman could be so stupid enough to follow a registered slogan of the Nestle Company


And you know what??



"I'm Loving it.."

g'em

Agent Smith wrote: »

i never before believed that a woman could be so stupid enough to follow a registered slogan of the Nestle Company

Nearly as stupid as not knowing that that kind of comment isn't allowed? Give it a rest.

Wagon

I hate the Danone Actimel ad's music. It tastes like ****e too. *goes back to greasy fry up*

Scarinae

I think the small print on ads is fascinating - obvious examples would be the 'drink sensibly' disclaimers on ads for various alcoholic drinks, or 'may help weight loss as part of a calorie-controlled diet' in many ads for diet/low fat foods. Someone mentioned Eva Longoria's eyelashes earlier on in the thread, if you look at the mascara ads in magazines (including the one with Eva Longoria for L'Oreal) they have small print at the bottom saying 'model is wearing lash inserts'. Is this because an advertising standards authority requires them to admit certain enhancements? I can't imagine them putting it in otherwise.

As for the palm oil thing, unfortunately palm oil is in many more products than you would expect. Most processed foods, like biscuits or pot noodles, contain palm oil. Also, sodium laureth sulfate is derived from palm oil; it is a foaming agent that is in pretty much anything that lathers - shampoo, toothpaste, washing up liquid, soap, shaving foam etc. The destruction of the habitats of orangutans is something that people are becoming more aware of, and there are some companies that are publicising their switch to 'ethical' palm oil from places like Costa Rica that don't have orangutans, which is a nice idea in theory but you have to remember that this is just switching the problem to another country and destroying different habitats to facilitate palm oil production. This is the reason that Lush removed palm oil and sodium laureth sulfate from their soap bases, instead of finding a new source of palm oil

Elle Victorine

li@mo wrote: »

Fair play to Nestle::D:D:D

this is one of the GREATEST marketing schemes I have ever come across...I still tip my hat to Yorkie for the uproar it caused on the radio! Amazing...never made me want to eat them more to be honest but I get a good chuckle still thinkin about it.



Other than that...special k is teh biggest joke I have ever come across and people who buy into it amuse me to no end.....more specifically the ones who dno't read the fine print!!!!

And as for those yoghurt adds...surly men get backed up bowels too no? Probably more than women!

WindSock

I always have to laugh when I see a guy in a pub drinking this crap. It's an alcopop ffs. The exact same as Smirnoff ice only the colour is blue and orange.

JC 2K3

WindSock wrote: »

I always have to laugh when I see a guy in a pub drinking this crap. It's an alcopop ffs. The exact same as Smirnoff ice only the colour is blue and orange.

Guys aren't allowed drink alcopops?

LightningBolt

To be honest I don't think anyone should drink alcopops. They're just full of ****e.

jasonb

I find a lot of advertisements fascinating. None of them make me want to buy their stuff, but I love the subtle and not so subtle messages in them.

I used to eat Special K and over the last few years it's gone from a 'healthy' cereal to a 'healthy' cereal for women. They've clearly decided that men don't want Special K anymore.

The seven signs of aging? Is that some sort of scientific list? I've also heard of the 5 stages of dry skin. Did the same person make these up?

I love how you can't say the word 'bloated' on the TV without putting your hand on your stomach. In case someone thought you meant your leg or something.

And the small print is always fun. As someone's already said, most hair / eyelash ads now have print saying that it's actually hair extensions or falsh eyelashes. Personally, I wouldn't buy something that so fails at doing the job that it's meant to that an alternative is used in the ad instead.

The other small print I love is when they say 73% of 213 women surveyed. Or 155.49 women. Who makes these numbers up?

Two ads that always stick in my mind though. As already mentioned, the 'Happy Period' ad. I'm a guy, but I know enough women to know that while some of them have relatively easy periods, and some have an absolute nightmare with them, none of them have ever, ever had a happy one ( unless it was one they thought might not come and then did! ).

The other ad was for a Hair product, which said that 95% of 'Red' readers said they'd recommend it to a friend, and the other 5% probably don't have friends. Way to alienate your target market!

Ads aim at our desire for an easy fix. Like all the diets out there. You want to lose weight? Eat less and exercise more. It might not be easy, but it is that simple. But people seem to want a perfect quick fix, whether it be weight loss or eyelashes...

J.

musicmonky

monkeyfudge wrote: »

You'd be surprised at the similarities that the Top Tips page in Viz shares with the Last Word page in New Scientist.

Oh.. and Charlie Brooker's Confessions of an Advertising Insider:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWXKHGolqrU

the master.... from 1 monkey 2 another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

Acacia

Dragan wrote: »

Advertising traditional plays on our weaknesses and gulabilites. "Girls" are supposed to worry about their skin, their hair and their weight. "Boys" are supposed to worry about football and getting girls.

That's true, if there's one thing that annoys me more than those stupid Activia ads ( yogurts look manky anyway) it's Lynx ads with 'stupid' men who only care about attracting women. It's so...patronising. The whole advertising industry is fairly insulting actually.

To add to Wibbs' point about the magazines, if you look at what's on the cover of women's 'entertainment' magazines- a hot airbrushed woman. And on the cover of men's 'entertainemnt' magazines- a hot airbrushed woman.
I guess you could argue whether it's nature vs. nurture which makes women 'obsess' about their looks, but the media is cetainly giving us plenty of encouragement in that department.