Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Calhoun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just to make sure you know, this was an ad for a men's health charity. It wasn't an ad for masculinity.

I know you want to saber rattle but i'm tired tonight and have to be up early in the morning. Maybe another time.

I know exactly what its for and think its a great ad.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

At this stage when the big brave bucks posting in all these threads get so easily upset, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

I saw this ad on TV the other night and thought it was good. Great advertisement for such an serious issue.

Have you been upset by this ad or not? Is this the standard of flattery that needs to be achieved to balm the bruised ego of some men?

Do you think the Gillette ad was supposed to help men, or antagonise them, bear in mind the divided nature of public discourse these days?

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just to make sure you know, this was an ad for a men's health charity. It wasn't an ad for masculinity.

Do you not think it is more in the business of a men's health charity to encourage men to improve...not the business of a razor company whose job it is to sell razors?

Zubeneschamali

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think the Gillette ad was supposed to help men, or antagonise them

No, it was an ad. It was intended to generate publicity and sell shaving products.


That is the point of all ads.


You're welcome.

Silentcorner

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it was an ad. It was intended to generate publicity and sell shaving products.


That is the point of all ads.


You're welcome.

Can you point me to the shaving products in the ad? That is the point of advertising....

Atlantic Dawn

I've tried switching over to all sorts of razer and shaving foam brands, sadly Gilllete is 'the best a man can get' and I can't go withouth.

Faugheen

I love the way the same contrarian men have an issue with an ad that asks you to be the best man you can be by stopping other men making a show of you.

Usual suspects missing the point completely because they feel offended while pointing fingers at loony lefty liberal SJW poopy pants’.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think the Gillette ad was supposed to help men, or antagonise them, bear in mind the divided nature of public discourse these days?

LOL. It wasn't about men. Corporations don't have opinions on men. I always have to wonder what level of reality were working on with these threads.

I don't think the ad was meant to help men, or antagonise them. It was meant to sell Gillette products.

Do you seriously think the ad was about men?

Zorya

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you think the Gillette ad was supposed to help men, or antagonise them, bear in mind the divided nature of public discourse these days?

LOL. It wasn't about men. Corporations don't have opinions on men. I always have to wonder what level of reality were working on with these threads.

I don't think the ad was meant to help men, or antagonise them. It was meant to sell Gillette products.

Do you seriously think the ad was about men?

I think the original advert was "about" men. It was also about selling a product and I think it may have failed in that, as profits went down. But many if not most adverts have a narrative structure that underpins the selling of the product and the Gillette narrative structure was abysmal. As a woman who has been blessed to know and depend on wonderful men, from father, husband, brothers, sons, friends and colleagues, I was moved by the story underpinning the prostate advert. The part where the grizzly grandad tickles the wee baby he is reading to is a beautifully captured moment. And it rings so profoundly true - these men are the men I know, unlike the horrible story of men in the razor advert.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL. It wasn't about men. Corporations don't have opinions on men. I always have to wonder what level of reality were working on with these threads.

I don't think the ad was meant to help men, or antagonise them. It was meant to sell Gillette products.

Do you seriously think the ad was about men?

To be honest I think this is one of the most public Corporate f##k ups of all time.

It is an ad, so it was meant to help Gillettes sales...they sell gillette products, they chose not to show a single one....the decided instead to go with the Toxic Masculinity angle, knowing how divisive it was...

The term Toxic Masculinity is a very negative and divisive term, just because it's use has been normalised doesn't make it right. It is the language of the radical feminist, it is a repugnant term.

Even during the repressive 50s and 60s the corporations weren't ramming ideology down our gobs...what is it about some people and their susceptibility to whatever ideology is the fashion of the day!!

Silentcorner

Faugheen wrote: »

I love the way the same contrarian men have an issue with an ad that asks you to be the best man you can be by stopping other men making a show of you.

Usual suspects missing the point completely because they feel offended while pointing fingers at loony lefty liberal SJW poopy pants’.

Toxic blacks.
Toxic Jews.
Toxic Women.

Are these back on the table.

I love the way people completely deny what is in front of their face so they can assume their own intellectual superiority...the ad was a disaster, it used a theme that is repugnant.

It had the creativity of a child, this was a massive own goal from P & G who should have known better.

kildare lad

They brought out a game battlefield 5 last year. It's meant to be a world war 2 shooter. In the ad for the game it had a British woman with a robotic arm going round shooting all the Nazis and hitting them with a cricket bat . People started complaining saying that there was no women on the frontline with the British army in ww2 . The developer released a statement telling people he was on the right side of history and told people not to buy it if they didn't like it

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/319787/This_is_not_okay_EA_minces_no_words_on_backlash_against_women_in_Battlefield.php


Funnily enough some people decided not to buy the game. It's fairly stupid for a company to alienate their customers . You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that it's mainly men that play violent shoot em up games . So to call them uneducated and claiming that he's on the right side of history isn't a good business model , and surprisingly a lot of people decided not to buy the game .

https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/01/04/after-a-year-of-insulting-fans-and-mishaps-battlefield-v-sales-estimates-look-grim/

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

Can you point me to the shaving products in the ad? That is the point of advertising....

It advertised the brand. The slogan was there. Whether it was a good ad or not is another matter.

They'll probably go back to their normal ads where an impossibly handsome guy drives his shiny red sports car, shaves and then his Impossibly handsome Mrs comes to him. Slogan: use Gillette and you might get to fcuk a supermodel.

Then the men in this thread can feel personally represented by Gillette again.

is_that_so

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It advertised the brand. The slogan was there. Whether it was a good ad or not is another matter.

They'll probably go back to their normal ads where an impossibly handsome guy drives his shiny red sports car, shaves and then his Impossibly handsome Mrs comes to him. Slogan: use Gillette and you might get to fcuk a supermodel.

Then the men in this thread can feel personally represented by Gillette again.

Advertising is aimed at promoting the brand. It didn't do this and lost them market share by insulting their customer base. That offence doesn't matter, their walking away does. Their CEO claims that they are satisfied with the decision. So I guess that's a win.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It advertised the brand. The slogan was there. Whether it was a good ad or not is another matter.

They'll probably go back to their normal ads where an impossibly handsome guy drives his shiny red sports car, shaves and then his Impossibly handsome Mrs comes to him. Slogan: use Gillette and you might get to fcuk a supermodel.

Then the men in this thread can feel personally represented by Gillette again.

Ii don't think you have a clue what you are on about...Gillette have being doing that for years but have been losing market share...hence the desperation...nobody was connecting with their ads for whatever reason....do you understand that much even??

I know you identify as a feminist, so I understand how much of this kool aid you must have consumed therefore you see nothing wrong with an advert that decides to antagonise white men in particular by throwing a load of toxic ideology into a one minute advert in the hope of gaining back lost market share....it backfired spectacularly!

Even with cheerleaders like yourself clapping along gleefully you are missing two very important points, it was a terrible advert, and more and more people are getting sick and tired of this pervasive media culture that only seeks to divide.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ii don't think you have a clue what you are on about...Gillette have being doing that for years but have been losing market share...hence the desperation...nobody was connecting with their ads for whatever reason....do you understand that much even??

I know you identify as a feminist, so I understand how much of this kool aid you must have consumed therefore you see nothing wrong with an advert that decides to antagonise white men in particular by throwing a load of toxic ideology into a one minute advert in the hope of gaining back lost market share....it backfired spectacularly!

Even with cheerleaders like yourself clapping along gleefully you are missing two very important points, it was a terrible advert, and more and more people are getting sick and tired of this pervasive media culture that only seeks to divide.

Thanks for understand me and all the kool aid I must have consumed. Lol.

I wasn't as upset by the advert as some here because I place none of my self esteem and identity in TV adverts.

If they made an ad that tells you you're handsome and clever and funny and they'd be honoured if you used their products, would you feel better?

I suppose the question is; what do you want in an advert?

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thanks for understand me and all the kool aid I must have consumed. Lol.

I wasn't as upset by the advert as some here because I place none of my self esteem and identity in TV adverts.

If they made an ad that tells you you're handsome and clever and funny and they'd be honoured if you used their products, would you feel better?

I suppose the question is; what do you want in an advert?

Aren't you the independent minded guy we all long to be...you identify as a feminist right...the ad was created by a feminist, as you well know.

The ad was terrible, the impact reflects this...the art of advertising is subtly, the geniuses that work in advertising know how to sell to you without you even knowing you are being sold to, it's really is impressive that you can't understand what is happening around you, this is just one ad, but it is part of a wider cultural dynamic that seeks to divide...you are being strung along like the good little feminist that you are!!!

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

Aren't you the independent minded guy we all long to be...you identify as a feminist right...the ad was created by a feminist, as you well know.

The ad was terrible, the impact reflects this...the art of advertising is subtly, the geniuses that work in advertising know how to sell to you without you even knowing you are being sold to, it's really is impressive that you can't understand what is happening around you, this is just one ad, but it is part of a wider cultural dynamic that seeks to divide...you are being strung along like the good little feminist that you are!!!

That's class that you think you know so much about me. And you're such an advertising critic. But I don't well know who the ad was created by. I haven't been obsessing over it for the last year. But I'll take your word for it since you seem to have don't the obsession on my behalf. Thanks for that.

I fast forward the ads whenever possible so I don't really mind what they say. I'm glad I don't get upset by that kind of thing though. If you expect ads for products to tell you about yourself, then you're probably on for a hiding to nothing. Would you consider building your self identity in other ways apart from TV adverts?

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's class that you think you know so much about me. And you're such an advertising critic. But I don't well know who the ad was created by. I haven't been obsessing over it for the last year. But I'll take your word for it since you seem to have don't the obsession on my behalf. Thanks for that.

I fast forward the ads whenever possible so I don't really mind what they say. I'm glad I don't get upset by that kind of thing though. If you expect ads for products to tell you about yourself, then you're probably on for a hiding to nothing. Would you consider building your self identity in other ways apart from TV adverts?

You identify as a feminist, which makes you fairly predicable to be fair!

I love the way you keep shifting the conversation away from Gillette, yourself and the radical feminist who created the ad.

This advert was unprecedented...never in the history of advertising has a Global Brand lost so much market share over one ad, this will be studied for decades to come in Marketing Courses, so yes, I am deeply intrigued by this ad, absolutely, it is not often we see complete and utter corporate dysfunction like this, and I am interested in those types of things!

I don't identify as anything but myself, you identify as a feminist, you are identifying with an ideology, just like the Catholics before you, predictably, you are going to appreciate an advert that reflects your ideology...the ad was a complete f##k up and you blame the people who reacted negatively to an advert that was created to be antagonistic.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

You identify as a feminist, which makes you fairly predicable to be fair!

I love the way you keep shifting the conversation away from Gillette, yourself and the radical feminist who created the ad.

This advert was unprecedented...never in the history of advertising has a Global Brand lost so much market share over one ad, this will be studied for decades to come in Marketing Courses, so yes, I am deeply intrigued by this ad, absolutely, it is not often we see complete and utter corporate dysfunction like this, and I am interested in those types of things!

I don't identify as anything but myself, you identify as a feminist, you are identifying with an ideology, just like the Catholics before you, predictably, you are going to appreciate an advert that reflects your ideology...the ad was a complete f##k up and you blame the people who reacted negatively to an advert that was created to be antagonistic.

Hardly surprising I deflect the discussion away from my self. You're the only one who wants to discuss me. You can pretend to know all about me if you like. I don't anything about you so I won't pretend to know all about you.

Just as a demonstration of how you've gone off on a tangent about me, I haven't said I appreciate the ad. I haven't said I like it. I've said a few times that I don't get upset by it. You're entitled to be upset by it if you want.

As a matter of interest, do you get upset every time you see a group represented in an unflattering light, in media? Or do you just get this upset about this one ad because it's about your group?

Zorya

It isnt really (for me) about whether one is influenced by or has ones self esteem impacted by advertisements...or film, music, media generally. Im more interested - generally, not just this advert - in what it is permissable to say or promote in the public sphere. Toxic masculinity is completely permissable, on message even. Toxic feminity is not permissable as a message. Gender theory is permissable, gender critical theory is not. Criticism of Christianity is permissable, criticism of Islam is not permissable. There are many more examples of opinions that are not permissable and other opinions that are freely promoted in the public sphere. The public sphere is a critical point to keep in mind, one can fast forward ads but as human beings the public sphere is one of the places we exist and certain ideas promoted there now are immune from criticism. People can lose their jobs for certain opinions.
I dont get upset about it, as some suggest as the only possible reason one points these things out. I am observing, that is all. It is a fascinating and bizarrely polarised time. What is considered incontestable truth now, in many areas, is utter scutter. Illogical cult like theisms. Its amazing what people will defend. Children being mutilated as part of gender theory. Imaginary wage gaps. Reflexively believing in rape culture. Etc etc. I hope later on when they see through some of the horrific bs they have espoused people will have the good grace to admit their part in the sh1t show.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hardly surprising I deflect the discussion away from my self. You're the only one who wants to discuss me. You can pretend to know all about me if you like. I don't anything about you so I won't pretend to know all about you.

Just as a demonstration of how you've gone off on a tangent about me, I haven't said I appreciate the ad. I haven't said I like it. I've said a few times that I don't get upset by it. You're entitled to be upset by it if you want.

As a matter of interest, do you get upset every time you see a group represented in an unflattering light, in media? Or do you just get this upset about this one ad because it's about your group?

You are confusing upset with intrigue, I thought the ad was woeful, it didn't upset me, it did waken me up to the price of my razor blades all of a sudden, I now have a much more cost efficient and enjoyable shaving routine, for which I am grateful for...I do think this ad is a symptom of a wider problem today's culture is facing, so there are a lot of ingredients that hold my interest in this.

You don't know much about me because I don't identify as anything, but you do, you identify as a feminist...it says a lot about you!

Silentcorner

Zorya wrote: »

It isnt really (for me) about whether one is influenced by or has ones self esteem impacted by advertisements...or film, music, media generally. Im more interested - generally, not just this advert - in what it is permissable to say or promote in the public sphere. Toxic masculinity is completely permissable, on message even. Toxic feminity is not permissable as a message. Gender theory is permissable, gender critical theory is not. Criticism of Christianity is permissable, criticism of Islam is not permissable. There are many more examples of opinions that are not permissable and other opinions that are freely promoted in the public sphere. The public sphere is a critical point to keep in mind, one can fast forward ads but as human beings the public sphere is one of the places we exist and certain ideas promoted there now are immune from criticism. People can lose their jobs for certain opinions.
I dont get upset about it, as some suggest as the only possible reason one points these things out. I am observing, that is all. It is a fascinating and bizarrely polarised time. What is considered incontestable truth now, in many areas, is utter scutter. Illogical cult like theisms. Its amazing what people will defend. Children being mutilated as part of gender theory. Imaginary wage gaps. Reflexively believing in rape culture. Etc etc. I hope later on when they see through some of the horrific bs they have espoused people will have the good grace to admit their part in the sh1t show.

Very well said, we live in the age of hysteria, I doubt those folks buying into it will ever have the grace to feel even mildly embarrassed about it!

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

You are confusing upset with intrigue, I thought the ad was woeful, it didn't upset me, it did waken me up to the price of my razor blades all of a sudden, I now have a much more cost efficient and enjoyable shaving routine, for which I am grateful for...I do think this ad is a symptom of a wider problem today's culture is facing, so there are a lot of ingredients that hold my interest in this.

You don't know much about me because I don't identify as anything, but you do, you identify as a feminist...it says a lot about you!

Still happy to think you know all about me. It won't make you any more knowledgeable but if it makes you happy then go for it. It works against you when you make assumption about what I think though. E.g. The last post where you though I approved of the ad. That was a wrong assumption based on your pretended knowledge of me. Where does your incorrect assumptions factor into your supposed knowledge?

As it goes, the publicity and the chat about alternative shaving products has led me to give other brands a try. I have one of those packs of 20 fusion razors for £20. So I've another while to go before buy new ones.

Mr E

Mod: don't reply to low post count users or you may find you've wasted your time when I delete those replies. Don't feed the trolls.

Melanchthon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL. It wasn't about men. Corporations don't have opinions on men. I always have to wonder what level of reality were working on with these threads.

I don't think the ad was meant to help men, or antagonise them. It was meant to sell Gillette products.

Do you seriously think the ad was about men?

My view was that it wasn't really aimed at men at all, despite the tone of the advert very much being "aimed at men", I would imagine women end up buying a a not insignificant proportion of of shaving products for their partners or male children even today.
It seems the advert didn't work, and may have lost more customers than it gained as the same effect could have been given by a less lecturing toned ad with a similar message about positive not negative male characteristics.

This is purely personal opinion but I think we have passed peak beard at this stage so really Gillette shouldn't be seeing a decrease in sales, they should probably be marketing products for the close cropped stubble look as that seems to be coming in.
I use double edged razors myself as they are far cheaper but honestly if you have the cash to burn Mach 3's do give a decent shave without risk of cuts a lot quicker.

yesto24

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It advertised the brand. The slogan was there. Whether it was a good ad or not is another matter.

They'll probably go back to their normal ads where an impossibly handsome guy drives his shiny red sports car, shaves and then his Impossibly handsome Mrs comes to him. Slogan: use Gillette and you might get to fcuk a supermodel.

Then the men in this thread can feel personally represented by Gillette again.

Except you would be wrong.
Go check out the Gillette add from 1989 (as American and 80s as it is)
Go do it, it's just over a minute, and come back and read the rest of this comment.

Did you watch it. Maybe it's my memory but that is what I recall all Gillette ads were like.
Not so simple as the description you gave was it.
No and you gave a description like that on purpose. Why you are arguing in such bad faith is for you to answer, but I won't be paying much attention to your postings from now on.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They'll probably go back to their normal ads where an impossibly handsome guy drives his shiny red sports car, shaves and then his Impossibly handsome Mrs comes to him. Slogan: use Gillette and you might get to fcuk a supermodel.

Then the men in this thread can feel personally represented by Gillette again.

Just like all the women who watch ads can feel good that if they buy this product or eat this cardboard cereal they won't be too old, have a fat arse and lank hair. It's how advertising works.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Just like all the women who watch ads can feel good that if they buy this product or eat this cardboard cereal they won't be too old, have a fat arse and lank hair. It's how advertising works.

Yeah, exactly. That's how ads work. They sell some kind of idealised version of the self. With the subtext you'll be happier, better looking, more successful, fcuk supermodels, have more friends and be better craic, win at work, win at sports etc. It's just advertising. It's not real life.

Getting bent out of shape about this ad is about a scale clever as getting bent out of shape about the ad aimed at women for cardboard cereal that tells them they won't be too old, have a fat arse and lank hair

El_Duderino 09

yesto24 wrote: »

Except you would be wrong.
Go check out the Gillette add from 1989 (as American and 80s as it is)
Go do it, it's just over a minute, and come back and read the rest of this comment.

Did you watch it. Maybe it's my memory but that is what I recall all Gillette ads were like.
Not so simple as the description you gave was it.
No and you gave a description like that on purpose. Why you are arguing in such bad faith is for you to answer, but I won't be paying much attention to your postings from now on.

Yeah watched it. It's the idealised version of the man. Successful at every
thing, marries the stunner.

Kinda a more detailed version of what I said. I saw an ad for Gillette today. Young urban guy uses Gillette so he doesn't get bothered by his boss, the totty at the gym, or the hipsters with beards. He goes his own way and finds his own path. Fcuks the supermodel.

It's all pretty similar stuff. What's your point?