Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

tigger123

When commerce starts following trends like this one, and large multinationals are putting their money on it, you know it's here to stay. They're following the prevailing winds.

seamus

Well, Piers Morgan hates it.

And since Piers Morgan hacks the private voicemails of murdered children for personal profit, it follows that anything which annoys Piers Morgan, is a force for good in the world.

Therefore, this ad is a good thing.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Well, Piers Morgan hates it.

And since Piers Morgan hacks the private voicemails of murdered children for personal profit, it follows that anything which annoys Piers Morgan, is a force for good in the world.

Therefore, this ad is a good thing.

Including his views on gun control in America? Good stuff.

Doctor Jimbob

Cienciano wrote: »

It hasn't. This is an ad to sell razor blades. This isn't the law.



And a lot of people are upset over this ad. It's the usual subset of people who are always upset over this shít and accuse everyone else of being snowflakes. This is an ad that would have been seen by nobody and has gone viral. Job done Gillette.

Yep. I think the ad is pretty daft to be honest, but I'm sure Gillette knew exactly what they were doing here.

Il Fascista

Deleted User wrote: »

Including his views on gun control in America? Good stuff.

He voted to remain in the E.U too, so Seamus must be a big fan of Brexit.

Wibbs

tigger123 wrote: »

When commerce starts following trends like this one, and large multinationals are putting their money on it, you know it's here to stay. They're following the prevailing winds.

Ahh bless, the naivete of it all.

These are a few ads from the 1970's:







Were they "here to stay"? That's only a few decades ago and if you think it can't go off in another direction in the future you could be in for a shock. It all depends where the money is and how those who want it target their marketing and products. In economic terms what gender equality did was increase the number of consumers and producers and transferred more wealth to them. Marketing decided that Women(tm) appear to be more susceptible to certain kinds of marketing than men(tm) and are therefore better consumers of the crap they're peddling, so it makes sense to aim more and more adverts at them.

They also make sure to keep Women(tm) off balance and self conscious which also means more tills ringing. The message is "You go Girl!, you overweight dull haired constipated person you". Never mind this razor "toxic masculinity" ad nonsense, the way women are targeted by ads and marketing is appalling. Something that old school Feminists noted and often. Their granddaughters rarely do. Indeed a goodly chunk of them will happily admit to being fashionistas and it could easily be argued that fashion as an industry is horribly sexist and damaging as far as women's self image goes.

jooksavage

Deleted User wrote: »

Including his views on gun control in America? Good stuff.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. He looked sane sitting beside psycho f****** maniac Alex Jones. Give him a medal.

It was wearingly predictable that a doughy wimp like Morgan would be mouthing off about this. Still labouring under delusion of himself as a "man's man".

Rory28

Piers Morgan should not be talked about. The less said about the cnut the better.

I will back any and all censorship of him.

Ashbourne hoop

Its an ok ad with a message that's laid on way to thick. Gillette knew exactly what they were doing though. They knew people would be "offended" by it and would discuss and share it on social media. I probably wouldn't have seen it if it wasn't on here. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Piers Morgan was in on it with Gillette. It wouldn't make me buy or not buy their products, and I suspect that'll be the case for the vast majority. Some people like to get outraged though....

wyf437gn6btzue

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Quick question regarding Gillette products. Are the one's aimed at women still a lot more expensive because there pink?
Several women in the past have said this to me and they used buy the male razors!

economies of scale, men buy razors far more frequently than women hence the difference in price. They also have totally different applications and more then likely have specific manufacturing processes tailored for each

freshpopcorn

Rory28 wrote: »

Piers Morgan should not be talked about. The less said about the cnut the better.

I will back any and all censorship of him.

Along with anybody who brings him up on a thread. There just attention seeking.

wyf437gn6btzue

Rory28 wrote: »

Piers Morgan should not be talked about. The less said about the cnut the better.

I will back any and all censorship of him.

Because he has a difference of opinion?

freshpopcorn

Rowan Sweet Banana wrote: »

economies of scale, men buy razors far more frequently than women hence the difference in price. They also have totally different applications and more then likely have specific manufacturing processes tailored for each

I actually looked them up there and they look different now.
I know a good few women who used the mens one's tough and they only defence they said was the colour.

Wibbs

Rowan Sweet Banana wrote: »

economies of scale, men buy razors far more frequently than women hence the difference in price. They also have totally different applications and more then likely have specific manufacturing processes tailored for each

Yeah they colour them pink and sometimes change the shape of the handles. A bloke could happily shave with a "woman's razor" and vice versa. Otherwise there's eff all difference, it's just a case of "what will the market accept that maximises profit".

tigger123

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh bless, the naivete of it all.

These are a few ads from the 1970's:







Were they "here to stay"? That's only a few decades ago and if you think it can't go off in another direction in the future you could be in for a shock. It all depends where the money is and how those who want it target their marketing and products. In economic terms what gender equality did was increase the number of consumers and producers and transferred more wealth to them. Marketing decided that Women(tm) appear to be more susceptible to certain kinds of marketing than men(tm) and are therefore better consumers of the crap they're peddling, so it makes sense to aim more and more adverts at them.

They also make sure to keep Women(tm) off balance and self conscious which also means more tills ringing. The message is "You go Girl!, you overweight dull haired constipated person you". Never mind this razor "toxic masculinity" ad nonsense, the way women are targeted by ads and marketing is appalling. Something that old school Feminists noted and often. Their granddaughters rarely do. Indeed a goodly chunk of them will happily admit to being fashionistas and it could easily be argued that fashion as an industry is horribly sexist and damaging as far as women's self image goes.

The ads you posted are almost 50 years old, and, as you say, a lot can change in that space of time. I'm unsure what point you're making - we both seem to agree that it's being driven by commercial enterprise.

The point that I'm making is that while certain corners of the internet will froth and foam at the mouth at these kinds of ads, decisions like this one (or Star Wars as another example) that significantly change a brand's direction are doing so for commercial reasons, ie, they know which direction society is going and going with the flow. I think it's entirely inaccurate to think that this ad was made purely to troll people.

Dyr

batgoat wrote: »

Doubt you'll get that with Gilette because they have a monopoly on razors effectively. (even if they are pretty crap razors) So it's more a positive effect for the brand name as the perpetually outraged are a pretty small group overall.

I havent put a Gillette product near me fizzer in a decade and I've convinced about a rake of lads not to either over that time period, there's cheaper better products out there than the mach 7 triple ultra stealth glide special forces razer

0cp71eyxkb94qf

So in a thread about a patronising ad we have managed to bring up child murder, men who are anything but pussywhipped are toxic men and comparable with piers Morgan.

This kind of deflection is quite common of the ideologically blind.

Feisar

Topathemornin wrote: »

So in a thread about a patronising ad we have managed to bring up child murder, men who are anything but pussywhipped are toxic men and comparable with piers Morgan.

This kind of deflection is quite common of the ideologically blind.

conorhal

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Its an ok ad with a message that's laid on way to thick. Gillette knew exactly what they were doing though. They knew people would be "offended" by it and would discuss and share it on social media. I probably wouldn't have seen it if it wasn't on here. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Piers Morgan was in on it with Gillette. It wouldn't make me buy or not buy their products, and I suspect that'll be the case for the vast majority. Some people like to get outraged though....

I don't think they know what they're doing at all....


Here's the main problem with 'woke-vertising' as I see it.
When you’re selling something, advertising is generally aspirational, positive and attractive. Your product is 'the best a man can get'.
It’s rarely attractive to a buyer to be made feel bad by advertising.
Woke-vertising, more often than not, is 'feel bad advertising'. It’s marketing based on an element of guilt or shame.
That can work, for example an ad that asks ‘is your body beach ready?’ takes aim at an individual customer’s insecurities and encourages them to think, ‘damn I need to get my ass to the gym ……or perhaps buy just your weight loss product’, but at least that sort of subtle negative advertising is still aspirational and connected to the product.

For the life of me, I can’t work out how much of a better person I can be towards women by buying a Gillette razor.

As ad campaigns go it’s a horrible misstep. It's marketing collective guilt or shame unconnected to their product or it's ability to resolve it, so it's advertising with nothing to offer the audience, which is not good for your brand. This is why Slimfast can ask the question 'are you beach body ready?' and Mars can't.

meeeeh

My advertising lecturer always said that advertisers use sex in ads when they are out of ideas. I'm starting to think that popular social issues are new sex in ads.

Wibbs

tigger123 wrote: »

The ads you posted are almost 50 years old, and, as you say, a lot can change in that space of time. I'm unsure what point you're making - we both seem to agree that it's being driven by commercial enterprise.

The point is it could change back to that. That there is no higher equality altruism going on. It's no brave new world revolution here.

The point that I'm making is that while certain corners of the internet will froth and foam at the mouth at these kinds of ads, decisions like this one (or Star Wars as another example) that significantly change a brand's direction are doing so for commercial reasons, ie, they know which direction society is going and going with the flow.

Star Wars? Jaysus. OK. You mean making it a box ticking exercise to get as many bums on seats as possible? Yep. That appealed to the Money alright and it's what Hollywood always does. There was also a stated aim by the studio to be more "progressive". Ditto for Dr Who. And both faced a backlash and returns that were not as they hoped. Star Wars will always sell. It's as close to a sure thing in the industry as you could hope for. However the most recent second outing had massive sales in the opening weeks and then fell off rapidly after that. It died a box office death in emerging and more and more important markets like China. Off shoots like Solo underperformed in a big way and other off shoots have been shelved for the moment and their merchandising was left gathering dust on shop shelves. The old stuff still sells, the new stuff didn't. It seems people will be happily preached at, if the product is good. When it's not and is full of plot holes and lacklustre characters they can sniff the preaching...

I think it's entirely inaccurate to think that this ad was made purely to troll people.

It was designed to get column inches, water cooler chat and internet clicks to drive brand recognition. Nothing more, nothing less.

batgoat

Bambi wrote: »

I havent put a Gillette product near me fizzer in a decade and I've convinced about a rake of lads not to either over that time period, there's cheaper better products out there than the mach 7 triple ultra stealth glide special forces razer

Yep perfectly aware of that, I use a double edge razor. But still majority will continue to buy Gilette.

Dyr

tigger123 wrote: »

The point that I'm making is that while certain corners of the internet will froth and foam at the mouth at these kinds of ads, decisions like this one (or Star Wars as another example) that significantly change a brand's direction are doing so for commercial reasons, ie, they know which direction society is going and going with the flow. I think it's entirely inaccurate to think that this ad was made purely to troll people.

Pretty sure Disney managed to lose money on Star Wars last year, something that shouldn't even be possible.

Chasing away your customers has always been bad for business

Rory28

Rowan Sweet Banana wrote: »

Because he has a difference of opinion?

Because he is a pillock

Feisar

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah they colour them pink and sometimes change the shape of the handles. A bloke could happily shave with a "woman's razor" and vice versa. Otherwise there's eff all difference, it's just a case of "what will the market accept that maximises profit".

I've borrowed a Venus razor from my Mother and Sister in the past and never noticed any real difference, the head doesn't lend itself well to shazing below the nose though.

Tacitus Kilgore

Bambi wrote: »

I think marketing depts are slowly learning that hate clicks dont help their brand

Although driving men away from crap like Gilette is a public service.

Well from a pure publicity point of view:


"Noone" was talking about Gilette yesterday, but they sure are today, and then some.

that's all I meant, I dont even trim me beard let alone shave so it's irrelevant to me all round

Irish Guitarist

seamus wrote: »

Interesting nerve to hit!

If you can't see the link between the whole PUA/redpill/incel nonsense, the people whinging about an ad for Gillette, and the 21 year old who saw fit to kidnap a 13 year old girl after murdering her parents, then you may be standing in a forest wondering why you have such a drastic shortage of wood.

There's seriously something wrong with you if you think anyone that doesn't like a bullshit ad is anything like a murderer and child rapist. That's one of the most insane things I've ever read here.

I'm not angry by the way. It's such a ridiculous opinion it made me laugh.

wyf437gn6btzue

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah they colour them pink and sometimes change the shape of the handles. A bloke could happily shave with a "woman's razor" and vice versa. Otherwise there's eff all difference, it's just a case of "what will the market accept that maximises profit".

the one predominant element that dictates price is the market size, from a cursory look the market in the US for womens razors is roughly 1/3 of the market for mens razors. They are marketed and manufactured as a different product yet sold in lesser quantities hence the obvious price difference.

Dyr

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Well from a pure publicity point of view:


"Noone" was talking about Gilette yesterday, but they sure are today, and then some.

that's all I meant, I dont even trim me beard let alone shave so it's irrelevant to me all round

Noone was talking about Harvey Weinstein until recently either, ask Miramax how they feel about the added publicity

Gravelly

Rowan Sweet Banana wrote: »

the one predominant element that dictates price is the market size, from a cursory look the market in the US for womens razors is roughly 1/3 of the market for mens razors. They are marketed and manufactured as a different product yet sold in lesser quantities hence the obvious price difference.

I work in consumer goods manufacturing, and I can tell you that the price of Gillette razors, mens or womens, has pretty much no connection whatsoever with the manufacturing cost, and little with the marketing cost.