Originally Posted by Frazod (Post 14039561)

And you know what stops bullying? When you stop being a pussy and stand up to them.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14040986)

What's preachy about it? If you aren't taking part in any of that conduct - why the hate? Are you part of the problem they're highlighting? If not - carry on. Be the best you, man.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14040995)

This is the problem. This right here. That's such a patently false narrative that's not based in reality - whatsoever.

Now why would you reinforce this obviously wrong notion? Because it fits your narrative and the narrative that you've been told by your silo. Stop that.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14041003)

Agree 100%. Just like there's nothing inherently wrong with femininity. It's all natural.

Originally Posted by zigbazah (Post 14039792)

The issue with ads like these is they conflate bad behavior with traditional masculinity. It's possible for all types of people to be abusive. It's also possible to like stereotypically "guy" things and not be an asshole. Two boys wrestling in the yard is a teachable moment for good parents. And the thing is, Gillette is trying to point that out, but the message should be to control your emotions, not "society says you should be manly but that's actually bad. "

Originally Posted by TinyEvel (Post 14039541)

Well we both have something in common that my daughter was also bullied by another girl in school. But the amount she suffered at the hands of several boys far, far outweighed that, and was passed off by the teacher as "boys will be boys."

They were specific boys. Individuals. And still a greater number of individual boys never spoke up, to say it's not cool to giggle and smirk every time the teacher says the word come in a sentence. Or not cool to try to take an upskirt pic with your phone in class. Or other more worse things that happened.

The definition of apathy is not caring or not showing emotion. It's either not caring or not speaking if you do. It's indifference or complacency. So I'm not sure what you mean by using apathy to describe PC culture. I think that apathy is harmful is what this message is trying to convey. Trying.

I make ads, I can look at this as a craftsman in this industry and there are a lot of things I would have done differently, made the message more intelligent, more poignant and direct. But I respect the brand for taking the stance. People are talking about it and that's the goal. With that in mind, I chose to offer my opinion while the thread is here, and really I'm on this board to read and talk about the Chiefs. That's what I'd prefer to do.

And I'm not trying to preach to you about what type of man or father you should be, sorry if you took it that way. I said that, in my opinion, one of the greatest measures of a man is using your strength to help others. Be that open a jar of pickles, giving recognition to a subordinate, or stopping bully, no matter who it be.

Originally Posted by vailpass (Post 14041081)

Let's not kid ourselves here. This move by Gillette has nothing to do with principles, taking a stance, or any other altruistic motive.

Like every other move made by a profit-based company this move is about money.

Dollar Shave Club and the other home delivery razor companies are eating up Gillette's profits. They are viewed by the younger demos as an outmoded, overpriced brand and their numbers show it.

They needed to find a way to get back into the conversation so they jumped on the latest fad in America:metoo/masculinity is toxic.
And look. They are now on the headlines of all the news outlets, people are talking about them again.

Not altruism. Capitalism. NTTAWWT.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14040531)

I don't know what's "PC" about the message, "Hey, don't be a dick. Be better than that." I know, I know - back in my day, we used to pound those nerds into oblivion and now they're CEOs, so it must have worked right?

Literally NO ONE is saying masculinity is bad; the reference is toward toxic masculinity, and I'm sure it's something we've all taken apart of at some point in our lives here. Bullying, demeaning, undermining, mansplaining, etc.

Why wouldn't you want to grow and be the best version of you you can be? That's the message here. Christ.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14040986)

What's preachy about it? If you aren't taking part in any of that conduct - why the hate? Are you part of the problem they're highlighting? If not - carry on. Be the best you, man.

Originally Posted by FringeNC (Post 14041103)

In the divisive times we live in, these firms are going to need to know where their customers stand on these issues, and I don't think right now they've thought things through. I think these are low-level SJWs at work here. You could be right, but I think they made a mistake. Do you think it was really in ESPN's interest to go full-SJW? Seems like they have pulled back a bit.

Originally Posted by Fishpicker (Post 14041259)

YT ratings don't matter.

Market Summary > Procter & Gamble Co
NYSE: PG
91.88 USD +0.73 (0.80%)

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041272)

Their stock price is not an indication of the success of this campaign.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041272)

P&G is much, much bigger than just the Gillette BU. Their stock price is not an indication of the success of this campaign.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041272)

P&G is much, much bigger than just the Gillette BU. Their stock price is not an indication of the success of this campaign.

Originally Posted by Fishpicker (Post 14041339)

not yet. the marketers know what they are doing.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041272)

P&G is much, much bigger than just the Gillette BU. Their stock price is not an indication of the success of this campaign.

Originally Posted by FringeNC (Post 14041412)

I dunno. Disney's decisions with ESPN and the Star Wars franchise suggest otherwise. Hasn't Disney cancelled a bunch of Star Wars films given the backlash?

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14041462)

But often times stuff I hate wasn't targeted to me.

Originally Posted by Fishpicker (Post 14041496)

that's pretty key

Originally Posted by Fishpicker (Post 14041496)

that's pretty key

Originally Posted by Fishpicker (Post 14041536)

no. Gillette is targeting women in general because women are responsible for 80% of consumer spending.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041535)

Who are they targeting then?

The suggestion was that they were targeting a younger demographic, specifically audiences on platforms like YouTube. By a 3:1, their YouTube audience HATES it.

If you're suggesting they're marketing to somebody other than what has been suggested, that's a fair point.

If you're suggesting that people here are just reacting because THEY don't like it, that's not valid. The overwhelming majority of viewers so far don't like it.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14041578)

The majority of viewers is based on your read on the reactions. They don't care about general population. They care about their target audience. If I had to guess, they're targeting millennials and younger because they are prime targets in the razor category. Older customers are not. Many are brand loyal by now and despite their outrage, not many will switch to a razor they hate to protest an ad. Not the approach I take because they may have alienated many of their best customers. But basically, if this does really well with younger men they won't give two shits about how many older customers they lose.

Originally Posted by Fishpicker (Post 14041536)

no. Gillette is targeting women in general because women are responsible for 80% of consumer spending.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5PaRn2-YfTI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041596)

Who uses YouTube the most? The exact audience they want to target.

It has 350,000 down votes and only 1/3 as many likes. How could anybody spin that as a win?

Fishpicker has a point - if they're targeting women, at least this isn't as bad a sign. But if they're targeting millennials males, this is bad. There's no way to say otherwise.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14041623)

I don't think up or downvoting is necessarily an indicator that millennials reject the ad. Even if adults use YouTube less, every single person triggered by the as is going to go to the ad and vote. So I'd be careful with that kind of metric. Again, I personally didn't like the ad and could easily see if younger folks thought it was too pc... But that is only what I see. The true marker is how Gillette carries this campaign future forward. If they insist on sticking with it with minimal tweaks they're seeing something we're not.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041652)

"Triggering" affects both sides, though. That's why you saw the thing with 100K down votes and 10K likes at one point - because the "against" crowd was showing up to down vote it.

It evened out over time yesterday because once the "for" crowd caught wind of what the "against" crowd was doing, they did the same thing.

In essence, social media "triggering" or backlash or whatever you want to call it, usually serves to only inflate total vote counts, not just one side or the other. But I'm speaking in generalities of course.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14041702)

Im just talking about how YouTube being a younger media doesn't mean the vote results are representative of a younger audience. Lots of older adults undoubtedly voted even when they usually don't vote on videos.

And these votes are heavily biased to triggered reactions. Those who despised it and those who loved it. Especially for millennials, I'm sure there are tons who have a reaction, but aren't really triggered either way.

Again...i tend to agree millennials probably found the ad too patronizing. But I'd just be careful relying on our interpretation of public reaction. I'd pay a lot more attention to how Gillette responds.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14040531)

I don't know what's "PC" about the message, "Hey, don't be a dick. Be better than that." I know, I know - back in my day, we used to pound those nerds into oblivion and now they're CEOs, so it must have worked right?

Literally NO ONE is saying masculinity is bad; the reference is toward toxic masculinity, and I'm sure it's something we've all taken apart of at some point in our lives here. Bullying, demeaning, undermining, mansplaining, etc.

Why wouldn't you want to grow and be the best version of you you can be? That's the message here. Christ.

Originally Posted by Rams Fan (Post 14041735)

The thing is, what's portrayed in the ad, isn't "toxic masculinity".

Sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc. can be done by both men and women. Those are legal crimes. Portraying it as only a male issue is dumb and wrong.

Do I agree with the message that I think Gillete is trying to portray that bad behavior shouldn't be tolerated? Yes. Do I think that scape goating it and making it seem as a social norm and only a male issue is the right way to go about it? **** no.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041652)

"Triggering" affects both sides, though. That's why you saw the thing with 100K down votes and 10K likes at one point - because the "against" crowd was showing up to down vote it.

It evened out over time yesterday because once the "for" crowd caught wind of what the "against" crowd was doing, they did the same thing.

In essence, social media "triggering" or backlash or whatever you want to call it, usually serves to only inflate total vote counts, not just one side or the other. But I'm speaking in generalities of course.

Originally Posted by Fishpicker (Post 14041790)

this is true.

consider the following
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ovY6yjTe1LE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

this vid used to have a down-skewed ratio. now it has 7k up vs 5k down.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14041786)

Beer is consumed by both men and women. Who do you think beer commercials are targeting? And why would that be?

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme (Post 14040405)

The message in this commercial doesn't come across as "don't be a bad man." It comes across as "being a man is bad." Or more "all men are bad, all you ****ers need to change."

DJ's Left Nut, as usual, sums it up pretty eloquently.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041709)

Okay, I get that.

Then again, if your argument is that most people just weren't moved enough to click thumbs up or thumbs down, how are they going to be moved enough to buy Gillette over some other brand?

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14041807)

I think that says a TON about you. I don't know anything about you personally, yet I know everything I need to know now. Poor little dude.

Originally Posted by Rams Fan (Post 14041806)

Because I presume the majority of their consumers are male.

Still doesn't excuse marginalizing a consumer base by saying, "Because you are a man, you do bad things."

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower (Post 14041813)

It says he's better at critical analysis than you are, chiefly.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14041807)

I think that says a TON about you. I don't know anything about you personally, yet I know everything I need to know now. Poor little dude.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14041818)

I don't think feeding your blind rationalizations has anything to do with "critical analysis." Hit me up when that makes any lick of sense, mkay?

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14041817)

Your perception that the message was "All men are bad" is very telling, as us normies over here can hear the actual message. Jesus - what even are you?

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme (Post 14041827)

I write advertising for a living. I actually have to consider things like not pissing off a huge chunk of my client's customer base.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14041811)

Branding doesn't have to lead to immediate action.

If a young person didn't have a visceral reaction, chances are this ad isn't going to sway them to not buy. A slight positive impression could be enough to consider buying. But the biggest impact will be the brand activity. They see Gillette's name all over the place. The question is if that's enough to balance any negative reaction that leads to lost sales. It's polarizing of an ad enough to fairly ask that question.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14041831)

The real question is if it was more positive than negative to millennials and younger audience. Could be, but who knows. I don't think Gillette cares about pissing off older audiences. Razor category values acquiring younger customers a lot more than keeping older ones.

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14041807)

I think that says a TON about you. I don't know anything about you personally, yet I know everything I need to know now. Poor little dude.

Originally Posted by Rams Fan (Post 14041828)

"Normies" don't use the word "toxic masculinity" to describe what people like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer do.

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme (Post 14041837)

Nobody values losing customers. They could have made this ad in a less idiotic way, with the same message they were attempting to deliver, and had positive feedback from everyone.

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 14041838)

I am impressed at your ability to completely and totally miss the true point of almost every conversation involving SJW topics.

The add is insulting on many many levels as it very simply driving a false male stereotype.

For example the guy suddenly deciding to break up the 2 boys fighting at the BBQ because he had some sort of epiphany, as if breaking up the fight isn't the norm and letting them just wail away on each other isn't the extreme outlier.

Every visual example used in the stupid video is the outlier and not the norm.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14041890)

I don't think it's an effective ad execution. I totally agree it could be done better. I'm just pointing out that for the razor category, younger customers are a hell of a lot more valuable than older customers. Probably now more than ever. I'm sure they don't want to lose customers, but if they gained enough high value customers, then the ad achieves what it wanted to do.

Again, I don't know if that actually happened. But I disagree that they're too concerned about alienating older audiences.

Originally Posted by Third Eye (Post 14041830)

You guys must have some kick ass lives if this is the kind of shit that gets you worked up;a ****ing tv commercial.

Originally Posted by Rams Fan (Post 14041828)

"Normies" don't use the word "toxic masculinity" to describe what people like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer do.

Do you, as a "normie", realize that Gillette acting patriarchal is portraying the exact ****ing problem that the commercial seems to be addressing?

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14041839)

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme (Post 14041915)

First of all, I'm not sure the alienation is limited to "older audiences." I've seen plenty of evidence that suggests you are pulling that out of your ass. Second, do older men not shave anymore? Do they not buy razors? What makes you think a younger audience is more valuable beyond the fact that they are likely to live longer so might be around to buy razors in the distant future. Third, I'm pretty sure if you asked the Gillette brass if they would be okay with pissing of a big segment of their customer base, they probably wouldn't be.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14041890)

I don't think it's an effective ad execution. I totally agree it could be done better. I'm just pointing out that for the razor category, younger customers are a hell of a lot more valuable than older customers. Probably now more than ever. I'm sure they don't want to lose customers, but if they gained enough high value customers, then the ad achieves what it wanted to do.

Again, I don't know if that actually happened. But I disagree that they're too concerned about alienating older audiences.

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD (Post 14042051)

True, but hipsters don't shave, so it's not clear if they added younger customers.

Originally Posted by CoMoChief (Post 14041916)

It's not "just" the tv commercials..It's the overlying problem of EVERYTHING in today's modern culture is all about being anti-white heterosexual male, and they're indoctrinating the next generations to believe this garbage.

TV shows, music, movies, sports etc...you can't turn on your TV or browse the interwebz without coming across this nonsense. Everyone is offended now by anything and everything, and it's all being programmed into us via media and most people don't even know it nor do they care. smh

Originally Posted by SuperChief (Post 14041807)

I think that says a TON about you. I don't know anything about you personally, yet I know everything I need to know now. Poor little dude.

Originally Posted by Fishpicker (Post 14042219)

there's more
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f257fRqcF58" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

P&G is most concerned with intersectional equality

in·ter·sec·tion·al·i·ty
/ˌin(t)ərsekSHəˈnalədē/Submit
noun
the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme (Post 14042132)

His analysis is more than likely not even true. There are a lot of variables and he is talking out of his ass. But i wish him luck in his new ad agency. He is going to need it.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14042328)

ROFL
Youre the one claiming you know for certain young people hate it because you've observed (with no data to back it up) that young people hated the ad. I didn't claim anything. You of all people should know that ad testing often comes back entirely different from what you personally observed. I didn't say young people loved it or hated it. I said I don't know. I'm not talking out of my ass because I didn't say the ad worked or didn't work. You did.

Originally Posted by FringeNC (Post 14042247)

JFC. As if this thread could get worse -- now we're talking about the joke that is intersectionality? I didn't realize Gillette was filled with cultural Marxists.

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme (Post 14042504)

I didn't claim to know for certain anything. You claimed it was old people who felt alienated. I said I don't know if that is the case, but have seen some evidence that it included people of all ages. You claim that young and new customers are inherently more valuable than existing customers, and I think you are overestimating that worth. Yes, young and new customers are important, but maybe not at the expense of existing customers. Brand loyalty applies to the people who have been loyal to the damn brand, as well. I said I don't think any company values losing customers, and you ****ing debated that point, of all the crazy shit I have heard.

But whatever. I'm out.

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme (Post 14042504)

I said I don't think any company values losing customers

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14042563)

Why is that weird to say younger audiences are LESS likely to be alienated by social justice messaging. The ad was clearly targeted to a younger audience. Did it actually hit the mark? I have no idea. It's polarizing enough that it wouldn't at all surprise me if it whiffed.

And yes, young customers for the razor category are significantly more valuable than older customers. Not just a little. A lot. It's simple customer lifetime value and switching costs. That's not talking out my ass. That's simple economics. No company values losing customers, but acquiring 1 young customer is probably worth losing a few older ones in the razor category. Not that that's even much of a risk, since brand loyal customers are far less likely to leave, even if they hate an ad like this.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 14042578)

Honestly, we're sitting here talking about branding and sales and quite possibly, Gillette doesn't even see it that way. Purchasing razors, like many things in this country, comes down to price for most people. They aren't going to pay a premium either way just because Gillette does something like this or their competitors don't. It's freaking razors.

This is just another way for the elites in this country to use their money and power to tell us all how much better than us they are. Us cretins out here beating our wives and spanking our secretaries.

Originally Posted by Pointer19 (Post 14042258)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_qtVNnaTtKU?start=2748" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(Start at 45:50 for Shapiro's take on the ad.)