Been hearing about all the hubbub cause by their new ad. So I watched it. Meh. So I went online to read about all of the opposing views. Almost without exception, every ad buried in the online articles was for Harry’s Razors.
Link here. I don’t get the controversy. The hubbub is from men who claim it’s an attack on all men. But there’s nothing in the ad that implies all men are like this; that’s completely in the eyes of these viewers. As one tweet commented, “If that Gillette ad made you feel bad, you’re why they made it.”
ETA: I should say, I wish I didn’t get the controversy. Unfortunately, I see fragile masculinity too often, so the controversy is not at all surprising.
If Barbasol starts running ads saying I’m destroying the planet*, I’m gonna give up shaving altogether.
Last week I went into the bathroom to find a river of lather on the countertop. My aged can of Barbasol dating back to the first Bush administration* finally rusted out at the bottom, releasing the remaining contents and probably promoting climate change. :smack:
**one can lasts practically forever, especially if you have a beard and only do touch-up shaving.
That’s bad marketing. If the minds you are trying to change are going to have a bad reaction to the ad, it is an ineffective ad. On the flip side, its effect on pro-metoo men is likely to be minimal since those men are already acknowledging the problem.
It had good motivation, but a terrible execution and tone.
When I first heard about the ad I thought, WTF? Is Gillette that desperate in its war against beards that its labeling beards as toxic masculinity? (I was obviously mistaken, but at least that would have something to do with shaving!)
It looks like a preview for the latest tedious Steve Carell movie…
But this isn’t how people think. If you are a member of Category X, and someone makes a YouTube video depicting a certain subset of Category X poorly (i.e., showing Asians driving badly, doing badly in sports, only good at math and wearing nerd glasses,) it’s going to be easily perceived as broad-brush generalization of Category X as a whole.
You can’t then dodge it by saying,* “Well, our YouTube video **only **applies to Asians who drive badly, do badly at sports, are only good at math and wear nerd glasses, and if that doesn’t describe you, then why are you offended?” * People just don’t take it that way. Imagine the response if the video were directed at gays/blacks/Jews/Hispanics, etc. Similar psychological response.
It’s one reason why Hillary’s “half of Trump supporters are a basket of deplorables” comment backfired. She may have meant it to refer to only 50% of Trump supporters, but likely a lot more than 50% of Trump supporters assumed her to be referring to them.
The message is innocuous enough, I don’t find it offensive in any way. That said, I’ll roll my eyes and move along every time I’m subjected to moralizing by Procter & Gamble and its corporate ilk. Can there be any doubt that they would run a commercial touting the joys of punching baby pandas if they thought it would sell more Mach 12s razors? I would hope that we can recognize corporate commercial virtue signaling for what it is, without being viewed as incorrigible defenders of “toxic masculinity” (which is a Very Bad Thing indeed!).
Anyone who thinks this is about anything other than Procter and Gamble trying to make money is still not yet woke. As one tweet commented, “An executive of P&G beat me as a child. If you buy P&G products you support child beating.”
I’m a member of Category X. (Adult male) I didn’t for one second think this ad was attacking me or describing my faults. I very smugly assumed it was aimed at all the other adult males. The assholes.
^ this.
If the 100 marketing guys around the conference table at Procter & Gamble’s office thought that the company would make more money if they made an ad showing guys’ balls getting chopped off, then we’d all be talking about an ad with guys’ balls getting chopped off.
But they’re not trying to change minds, they’re trying to sell shaving products and they’ve clearly made the calculation that they will sell more product this way. My guess is that they did some research and found a lot of women buy shaving products for the men in their household.
Sure, but there are hundreds of thousands of people on the YouTube video who did assume that the video was referring to them. So they are the ones protesting.
I think this gets at about 90% of where I’m at. The other 10% is my typical unchecked raving and drooling which really doesn’t warrant any more attention.
No doubt, But the controversy is not about the effectiveness of the ad (which I agree with you on), but “what about the poor mennnnnn??”
I don’t think there’s the slightest bit of controversy about the purpose of the ad.
I just find it amusing that my friends who are normally anti capitalism and anti corporations are now using a commercial to virtue signal. So many insecure people using a commercial from a company they probably once condemned for the supposed “pink tax” are now big fans. But they get to use it to feel better about themselves and ultimately that’s what Gillette is selling.
Apparently it’s gotten hundreds of thousands of dislikes non YouTube, after they tried to delete negative comments.
P&G trying to restablish their feminist credentials, after their tampons caused toxic shock syndrome to God knows how many women.
The advert message is an important one. Delivered in possibly the most lousy way possible.
If the incels and red pill fuckswits protests cause a drop in Gillette popularity, which in turn causes them to price their products more realistically, then the incels and red pill crowd would have finally accomplished some good.
Still, yeah, it’s not generally a good idea to potentially alienate the cohort which contains almos5 all your customers.
I don’t doubt that they want to sell more stuff, but even with that as the primary goal the ad fails. I don’t see the needle moving positively in response to that ad, and there is a likely outcome that the result could be negative to sales. In other words, even less effective when looking at it as trying to sell razors.
In my opinion, people who respond positively to the ad are not likely to change shopping behavior because of the ad. People who respond negatively to the ad are more likely to change shopping behavior and stop buying Gillette.
It’s a good thing we won’t see an ad that is an analog of this one directed toward women with the message of how they can do better. That might just spark a civil war.
I think those are one and the same. An effective ad needs to change minds without triggering “poor men” reactions. The left keeps making the same mistake over and over again when it comes to issues. “I’m Right, You are Wrong” is not a persuasive argument – even if you really truly are right. Perhaps especially so. I think I recall research that telling someone that they are wrong entrenches an opinion further rather than reverse it.