Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

AudreyHepburn

It’s not the worst ad I’ve ever seen but I don’t like this new school of thought that says men need to be taught how to behave especially when it comes to interacting with women.

The vast majority of men are not sexual deviants and I worry that campaigns like this will only polarize them.

Deebles McBeebles

Gravelly wrote: »

If it is, he has an amazing arse.

He was always told he had an arse for selling razors

paleoperson

Normally I'd be very cynical about huge companies like Gillette pulling this sort of thing and suspect they anticipated the backlash and welcome the publicity it will bring. That they knew such a thing would happen and had it all planned and calculated.

But what kind of stunt involves trash-talking your own customers? There's no way, no how could this ever turn out to be a good thing for Gillette. I know I don't really want to buy Gillette anymore. The "all publicity is good publicity" thing may go a long way, but not trash-talking the people you want to buy the product. :rolleyes:

Their own customers!!!

1800_Ladladlad

vetinari wrote: »

I think the ad is a little OTT but overall has a reasonable message.
I understand the viewpoint that there will probably not be a corresponding ad made about women.
That said, it's interesting to see the visceral reaction from some men to the idea of treating other people more nicely.

It brings out almost a primal element, that doing so would make you less of a man.
How dare someone tell you that you should be nicer to people?
Male fragility is very real.

I would ask kindly for you to please p*ss off with this little tikes rendition of passive feminism, so 'woke'.

Sunderland00

Joke

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paleoperson wrote: »

Normally I'd be very cynical about huge companies like Gillette pulling this sort of thing and suspect they anticipated the backlash and welcome the publicity it will bring. That they knew such a thing would happen and had it all planned and calculated.

But what kind of stunt involves trash-talking your own customers? There's no way, no how could this ever turn out to be a good thing for Gillette. I know I don't really want to buy Gillette anymore. The "all publicity is good publicity" thing may go a long way, but not trash-talking the people you want to buy the product. :rolleyes:

Their own customers!!!

I’ll be interested to see the figures. Because for every person that decides to boycott the brand, there are probably others who only vaguely hear about the furore, don’t pay much attention to it and then the brand name is in their head. I wouldn’t be convinced that this will make much difference.

Does anyone know what the blowback from that ad a few years ago did for Pepsi? Did it affect sales much?

Muckka

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ll be interested to see the figures. Because for every person that decides to boycott the brand, there are probably others who only vaguely hear about the furore, don’t pay much attention to it and then the brand name is in their head. I wouldn’t be convinced that this will make much difference.

Does anyone know what the blowback from that ad a few years ago did for Pepsi? Did it affect sales much?

I remember back in the 90's going to college and this guy in Cork they called Pepsi...

I used to wonder why they called him pepsi, year's later it dawned on me.

I often wonder is he still making a lot of dosh.

Silentcorner

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ll be interested to see the figures. Because for every person that decides to boycott the brand, there are probably others who only vaguely hear about the furore, don’t pay much attention to it and then the brand name is in their head. I wouldn’t be convinced that this will make much difference.

Does anyone know what the blowback from that ad a few years ago did for Pepsi? Did it affect sales much?

You can't really compare this with any advert that has preceded it, not Pepsi, not Nike, they were totally different adverts, while they were controversial they were not offensive as such.

Gillette, has gambled that more young men will buy their blades (I can't see them attracting men outside of young men to the product, as men tend not to change brands over time, the battlefield is young men) than the amount of people who will stop buying the product.

The market has been awoken to the cost of the blades, if the quality of the competitors is equal, the competitors will gain a heap of new customers.

Also as a consequence, the sins of Proctor and Gamble are now also in the public conscious....will it affect the broader range, will the boycott extend to P & G?

Are these the questions one would ask after a successful campaign.

ArchXStanton

This ad is marketing genius, still though its not nearly as good as what Gillette have just done for them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUG9qYTJMsI

Ultimate Seduction

Share prices went through the floor over the last week I believe.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Share prices went through the floor over the last week I believe.

That’s not surprising. I’d be interested to see where they are in a few months.

Silentcorner wrote: »

You can't really compare this with any advert that has preceded it, not Pepsi, not Nike, they were totally different adverts, while they were controversial they were not offensive as such.

Gillette, has gambled that more young men will buy their blades (I can't see them attracting men outside of young men to the product, as men tend not to change brands over time, the battlefield is young men) than the amount of people who will stop buying the product.

The market has been awoken to the cost of the blades, if the quality of the competitors is equal, the competitors will gain a heap of new customers.

Also as a consequence, the sins of Proctor and Gamble are now also in the public conscious....will it affect the broader range, will the boycott extend to P & G?

Are these the questions one would ask after a successful campaign.

Well, we don’t know yet whether it was successful or not. The bottom line will tell us. Let’s see where we are at the end of the year. I know people desperately want it to be unsuccessful but it’s too soon to tell.

Silentcorner

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s not surprising. I’d be interested to see where they are in a few months.



Well, we don’t know yet whether it was successful or not. The bottom line will tell us. Let’s see where we are at the end of the year. I know people desperately want it to be unsuccessful but it’s too soon to tell.

Correct, I suspect it will be end of quarter before any results materalise, as there would be normal product levels in the distribution network.

They started a conversation alright...how big will the boycott be??

paleoperson

We won't ever know the real effect of the boycott because we can't tell the results of boycott people from reaction to the ad in general. This isn't good for Gillette and people are reacting against it.

I decided to buy dollar shave club razors next time instead of my usual Gillette because I always just mindlessly bought the brand razors and never gave others a chance. I don't consider myself to be part of a "boycott" though - I will go back to Gillette again if I find it worth it for me.

Zorya

ArchXStanton wrote: »

This ad is marketing genius, still though its not nearly as good as what Gillette have just done for them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUG9qYTJMsI

Swoon. I think I'm in love. He is very cute.

Feisar

:P:P:P

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Silentcorner wrote: »

Correct, I suspect it will be end of quarter before any results materalise, as there would be normal product levels in the distribution network.

They started a conversation alright...how big will the boycott be??

I’m sure there are examples of brands never recovering from bad ad campaigns or scandals. It’ll be interesting to see what happens from here.

paleoperson

"Gillette - The best a person can get."

fly_agaric

Just watched this on youtube. It's gas. I feel so uplifted...
Possibly came out of a big echo chamber or a "filter bubble".
Most of their creatives/marketeers are probably women and if they got an ad agency to do work they are probably women too. I would say these areas are very female dominated in all the big companies now so you might see a strong group-think around the standard feminist viewpoints on all the many sins of the male gender + how to right them developing in that environment.
Perhaps it is a modern mirror-image of the old ads with gangs of happy housewives all going goo-eyed over the best washing powder to get wonderful hard working hubbys' shirt collars sparkling.

NSAman

paleoperson wrote: »

"Gillette - The best a person can get."

Sure it isn't "peoplekind" according to a certain Canadian?

Ultimate Seduction

fly_agaric wrote: »

Just watched this on youtube. It's gas. I feel so uplifted...
Possibly came out of a big echo chamber or a "filter bubble".
Most of their creatives/marketeers are probably women and if they got an ad agency to do work they are probably women too. I would say these areas are very female dominated in all the big companies now so you might see a strong group-think around the standard feminist viewpoints on all the many sins of the male gender + how to right them developing in that environment.
Perhaps it is a modern mirror-image of the old ads with gangs of happy housewives all going goo-eyed over the best washing powder to get wonderful hard working hubbys' shirt collars sparkling.

There was a picture floating around actually of the head of marketing at Gilette and shes exactly how you'd imagine her. Most likely never got the attention off men she wanted.

Chris_Heilong

fly_agaric wrote: »

Just watched this on youtube. It's gas. I feel so uplifted...
Possibly came out of a big echo chamber or a "filter bubble".
Most of their creatives/marketeers are probably women and if they got an ad agency to do work they are probably women too. I would say these areas are very female dominated in all the big companies now so you might see a strong group-think around the standard feminist viewpoints on all the many sins of the male gender + how to right them developing in that environment.
Perhaps it is a modern mirror-image of the old ads with gangs of happy housewives all going goo-eyed over the best washing powder to get wonderful hard working hubbys' shirt collars sparkling.

It was directed by a Feminist so that explains everything really.

professore

fly_agaric wrote: »

Just watched this on youtube. It's gas. I feel so uplifted...
Possibly came out of a big echo chamber or a "filter bubble".
Most of their creatives/marketeers are probably women and if they got an ad agency to do work they are probably women too. I would say these areas are very female dominated in all the big companies now so you might see a strong group-think around the standard feminist viewpoints on all the many sins of the male gender + how to right them developing in that environment.
Perhaps it is a modern mirror-image of the old ads with gangs of happy housewives all going goo-eyed over the best washing powder to get wonderful hard working hubbys' shirt collars sparkling.

Mad men in reverse, only with them at least some of the sexism was unconscious. Mad women?

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I said P no man is an island, you didn't pop into the world with those traits fully formed. Like you said there was trial and error, but a huge part of that trial and error was positively or negatively reinforced by your environment, your peers, family and local and wider society. Your right and wrong would be both subtly and grossly different were you brought up in another place and another time. It wouldn't have to be such a different place or time either. If Boards was around and this was 1950's Ireland the subjects would be radically different as would most of the reactions and attitudes. We would be quite different people, in a few attitudes no doubt so different as to be uncomfortable, even abhorrent to us now. We all pick up a lot of external philosophies in our lives that inform who we are and what we believe and how we ultimately act and react to things.


Resting in my account...

Our personalities are formed by the interaction of bio/psycho/and social forces as to which has the greater influence very much depends on the individual. For example someone who grew up in a socio-disadvantaged area it might be that the social element is the strongest influence whereas someone whose mother drank or did drugs during pregnancy might be heavily influenced in the biological realm due to the complications of whatever substance she was imbibing. However self worth is always intrinsic i.e how you feel about yourself is ultimately the individuals responsibility. In the heel of the hunt no-one can force you to feel a particular way about yourself, the environment can and does succeed to define people's intrinsic value but ultimately it cannot decide for you. It is in fact the only true freedom that we as thinking animals have.

Wibbs

Dannyriver wrote: »

However self worth is always intrinsic i.e how you feel about yourself is ultimately the individuals responsibility. In the heel of the hunt no-one can force you to feel a particular way about yourself, the environment can and does succeed to define people's intrinsic value but ultimately it cannot decide for you. It is in fact the only true freedom that we as thinking animals have.

That's far more a comforting illusion than reality, not unlike free will. One that makes for stirring one liners on Arsebook and sells self help books and the like to the naive.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Wibbs wrote: »

That's far more a comforting illusion than reality, not unlike free will. One that makes for stirring one liners on Arsebook and sells self help books and the like to the naive.

It doesn't strike me as entirely wrong? I agree that we can't click a finger and smile at ourselves and pretend our way into loving ourselves, but ultimately we can take responsibility of how we act on a day to day basis and through our actions improve our self worth.

Wibbs

Cassandra Shapely Snag wrote: »

It doesn't strike me as entirely wrong? I agree that we can't click a finger and smile at ourselves and pretend our way into loving ourselves, but ultimately we can take responsibility of how we act on a day to day basis and through our actions improve our self worth.

Oh there's an element of truth in it NW, but things are rarely so simple. EG this part:the environment can and does succeed to define people's intrinsic value but ultimately it cannot decide for you. is a bit of a contradiction. But hey, if it works for someone then great, after all, we are a mass of contradictions and self delusion. That's a large part of what it is to be human.

Outlaw Pete

Cassandra Shapely Snag wrote: »

...ultimately we can take responsibility of how we act on a day to day basis and through our actions improve our self worth.

So can both genders though but all this crap does is suggest men are responsible for all negative behaviors and only their influence can affect change. It just feeds into the notion that women are bystanders in society with little or no influence which is grade A bullshit of course. These people tell us that toxic masculinity is on the rise. Well, if it is, maybe women have a role to play in whatever behaviour it is they feel falls under that umbrella as at no time in history have women had more influence over boys than they have had over the last 20 to 30 years.

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

That's far more a comforting illusion than reality, not unlike free will. One that makes for stirring one liners on Arsebook and sells self help books and the like to the naive.

I agree reality is that people tend to be dominated by external forces and societal circumstances but that doesn't however make what I ve said an illusion. As John Lennon said 'a working class hero is something to be'. By the way which part of it do you disagree with?

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh there's an element of truth in it NW, but things are rarely so simple. EG this part:the environment can and does succeed to define people's intrinsic value but ultimately it cannot decide for you. is a bit of a contradiction. But hey, if it works for someone then great, after all, we are a mass of contradictions and self delusion. That's a large part of what it is to be human.

It's actually not a contradiction at all. I think maybe you are misunderstanding the various inferences of the auxillary verb 'can'

.Apologies for not being clearer.

'The environment can and does succeed' . in this instance 'can' refers to an ability

'It cannot decide for you' ....In this instance 'cannot' the word refers to 'having the power to do or not do in this case.'

Read with this in mind it is not a contradiction.

Dannyriver

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So can both genders though but all this crap does is suggest men are responsible for all negative behaviors and only their influence can affect change. It just feeds into the notion that women are bystanders in society with little or no influence which is grade A bullshit of course. These people tell us that toxic masculinity is on the rise. Well, if it is, maybe women have a role to play in whatever behaviour it is they feel falls under that umbrella as at no time in history have women had more influence over boys than they have had over the last 20 to 30 years.

I haven't seen much of that kind of rhetoric other than from extreme feminists. the Gillette add certainly didn't infer that men were responsible for all negative behaviours. where have you been seeing it.