Have you noticed the new ad campaign for Cottonelle toilet paper? It features a really cute Golden Retreiver puppy. Believe me, I’ve got nothing against pictures of cute puppies. Nor do I have any inherent objection to a legal product being publicized. But apparently Cottonelle felt they needed to saturate the commuter train station I use with these ads, each of which contains what I assume is intended to be a clever crack (“heh heh”) somehow related to your ass and the wiping thereof.
“Sales of thongs to men were up last year.”
“Too much bran?”
etc.
Just getting off my train I walked under 3 of these signs, each several feet square. When I reached the front of the station, a number of even larger billboards of the same ilk faced me wherever I cast my eyes. It seemed as tho they bought every billboard in the damned station just to be sure everyone started and ended their commuting days thinking about assholes.
I’m no marketing genius, so could someone clue me in on the deal? Is this supposed to be hilarious in some sophmoric Beavis and Butthead sense? “Heh heh - they’re talking about butts!”
Cut me a break. I’m slogging to and from the office every day, trying to minimize my awareness of rubbing elbows and assholes with countless strangers. I’d be perfectly happy, thank you very much, if you didn’t go through all this effort and expense to make the subject of my fellow commuters’ buttwiping practices and concerns even momentarily cross my mind. Hell, not even that cute chick!
Yes, I think they are all assholes. I just don’t really need to think ABOUT their assholes!
Maybe they’re not all assholes. Maybe some of them long for a product that will quickly and cleanly wipe the excrement from their bums. Forget the war and the economy, these are the issues that need to be addressed in todays world.
And I thought it was bad because they plastered St. George subway station with the ads. As if I like to look at dogs’ butts while on the way downtown. Not.
Why did they choose that cute little fuzzy Golden Retriever puppy as an icon? Are we supposed to think Hey, that’s what I’d really like to wipe my ass with, but maybe the Cottonelle will represent a reasonable facsimile of the experience?
That always reminds of the joke where the rabbit and the bear are talking about pinching a loaf and the bear asks the rabbit “Does shit stick to your fur?”. The rabbit replies “Not ever” . So the bear grabs the rabbit and wipes his ass with him.
You know, I was thinking about that same joke, and realized I didn’t really understand it. I always told/heard it the way you did, but wouldn’t it make more sense if the bear used the rabbit to wipe because the rabbit said shit DID stick to his fur?
Rarely does well to overthink sophomoric shitjokes, but still…
OG FUCKING DAMMIT, I’d been thinking about pitting these moronic ads for at least a week! I have to see these ads at the bus station near my apartment and most days on the subway. I hate them. They’re coy and a little creepy and I guess the tone could be best described as “infantilizing.”
“Be kind to your behind?” Nobody above the age of, say, 10 should be calling your ass “your behind” unless a child is in the room.
The “Too much bran” one was the worst, although fortunately I only saw it once and then forgot about it. That one has the same tone and asks a way-too-personal question combined with a crap joke. There’s just something vaguely wrong about these ads and having to read and think about these things in public. Blech. Put a lid on the cutesy shit, guys!
Those Bear commercials always get me imagining just how nasty the ass of a 2,000 pound animal that eats berries, carrion and garbage, and is covered in thick shaggy fur, must really be. :eek:
Honest to God, I have the world’s most juvenile sense of humor (I clicked into this thread, after all), but I have to be honest. When I read the two adlines in the OP, I made a face and said “gross!”
This is how I’ve always heard it, and I interpreted it as “do you mind shit sticking to your fur?” as opposed to “does shit stick to your fur?” It’s kind of an amphibology, no?