Gilette ad
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:23 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
I didn't say you're reacting the wrong way. I said that people who didn't like the ad (was not talking about you specifically) were focusing on the wrong thing. And that's a pretty simple concept. When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things.


The question is are those people focusing on the wrong thing or was the message insufficiently conveyed? We can certainly go back and forth on what our personal feelings were about it but that's not all that interesting and usually devolves into snarky one-liners with little meat behind them.

The Kaepernick Nike ad was highly controversial, caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It has 27.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 0.07% meaning of all of the people who watched the video, 0.07% had such an issue with it they felt the need to express their displeasure.

In contrast, the Gillette Ad, also controversial, has also caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably also upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It currently has 20.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 4.9%

There are over 5 billion videos on YouTube. In 3 days, this video managed to crack the top 50 in terms of total negative sentiment and it is nearing now the top 30. This is an unprecedented level of negative sentiment that requires years and in many cases over a decade for a "bad" video to accomplish.

Remember the "Friday" video by Rebecca Black? It is one of the most disliked online videos ever made (currently around 7th all-time) and it has a negative sentiment percentage of 2.6%, meaning nearly double the people who saw the video disliked it as a function of total viewership.

There's a lot of finger wagger types out there saying the message is great, makes sense, but the numbers are suggesting the exact opposite of that. It appears that what people THINK is a sending a good message, may not actually be doing that at all.

Anyway, our personal opinions are less interesting to me. These types of messages about driving change are important. And it should be more interesting to us about how to effectively communicate important messages than the satisfaction folks seem to get about outraging the other side.


I don't think that it was insufficiently conveyed, but that of course is just an opinion not a fact.

The message seemed quite clear: this is what a lot of men were like, now we need to be better. Don't bully, harass, mansplain, be dismissive of bad behavior (boys will be boys).

The best a man can get was their tagline forever. It was assumed they meant the razor was the best razor a man could get [his hands on]. Now they're giving it a different meaning. The best a man can get [as a person]. And all of us are far from our best, so let's be better. And this is targeted towards men because their ads have always targeted men. And it's a real issue that we have in our country.

I'm not saying that this is the only way to interpret the message, as I've seen from the backlash there is a negative way to interpret it. I see a lot of grown men throwing a fit and getting defensive. And maybe there is something I am missing, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything and would love another perspective. So how do you see the ad? If you have issue with it I would like to know why. Not to tell you you're wrong but to understand a different perspective that isn't so obvious to myself.


I'm not an outrager, and I'm in the marketing and advertising industry, so I'm pretty desensitized to this stuff. So my personal feeling? Hokey ad campaign (i.e "not cool" who says that?) attempt at latching on to the new woke marketing trend in advertising. Everyone in advertising now wants people to think they're woke.

I assumed there'd be some backlash the first time I saw it, that's pretty obvious considering Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer sparked outrage, but the reaction we have seen so far has been surprising. It's a heck of a lot more than your extreme outrager on the fringes. The negativity is 50x greater than the negativity for the Kaepernick ad. So yeah, great question -- why?

I touched on it a couple pages back, but my feeling is comes down to the execution of the ad. Some pundits within the ad/marketing space are echoing this as well. I think there are two primary problems which boil down to the finger wagging style in which it was shot (which on the other hand will empower finger waggers) and the conflation of traditional masculinity with toxic masculinity.

If you want your target audience to change their behavior, you have to INSPIRE them to do so, not SHAME them into it. Shaming does work sometimes, but it will more often backfire.

On the conflation component. Think of it this way. If the video was simply a PSA about sexual assault being bad for instance -- no one would be upset by it. (Well, maybe a lame few as there always is). But once you put that on the same plane as wanting to talk to an attractive woman or allowing your kids to wrestle, you're going to get a lot of wtf reactions.

It's a short film, like a minute long, so there's a real challenge in telling your story in such a short span of time. Even still, a good lesson from this ad is that how you tell your story may arguably more important than the moral of your story.


I see your point regarding the finger wagging and shaming. And viewing it from that perspective it may be a bit ironic that it is viewed as a good/inspiring message to those who don't need to reminder and as bad/shaming to those who should be listening the most.

I completely agree that how you say something is often just as - if not more - important as what you say.

I still believe it is a good message while you are right, the delivery could have been better. I think those outraged are more outraged at being called out for displaying poor behavior than at how the message was conveyed. I think regardless of how it was delivered we wouldn't see much less outrage because they disliked the message and its implication that they have room to be better rather than the delivery.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:23 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Are you arguing that a men's facial shaving product should be marketing to non males? Their consumers are men.


If your target and consumers are only men, and you want to send some kind of moral message - pick one that only applies to men.



Their message was directed to men and was specifically about men. Referencing #metoo was simply establishing a context. The message wasn't just "be better", it was "men need to be better".


I get that. But it’s a universal message that Gillette took and tailored it down to only 1/2 the population.

No other walk of life would that apply other than a Gillette commercial and an all boys group/club/team/gang.

You wouldn’t have the teacher stand in front of a class of boys n girls and give a speech about how only the boys need to be better.

Nothing in that ad/message says that it needed to be narrowed down to men only.

They talked about boys growing up and the mentality of “boys will be boys” and how as men, we have to stop that.

Well, don’t moms need to stop that too? What about teachers when they see boys being boys? Shouldn’t they stop that behavior as well? Aunts? Sisters?

Then they talk about sexual assault? Well, aren’t there sexual assaults involving women?

This is not a male only issue - it’s a universal issue applicable to both males and females.

Gillette just chose to focus on males only. That’s what I have an issue with.

And that’s why my example - if Gillete only made hair products for black
men - then the message would be - only black men need to get better. And I don’t see that going over too kindly



Gillette is only speaking to their customers. If another brand wants to send the same message to their consumer base, then they can, but it's not up to Gillette to do so and it wouldn't even reach them.

Those Dove commercials a few years ago only spoke to women, but the message was universal. Dove did that because their customers are women.

Hennessy is the most recognized brand in cognac. It's also happens to be popular among black Americans. Thus the brand markets toward that segment of consumers by using NAS as their spokesperson and highlight accomplishments among African Americans. There is no "both sides" to be made here though. They don't have to also highlight European American accomplishments and hire Kid Rock as their spokesperson. And nobody is asking for that.


Nah - there’s a difference between target advertising and public sevice announcements

If you can find one public service announcement ad geared towards only one segment of the population and didn’t receive backlash - let me know
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:33 pm    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
loslakersss wrote:
I didn't say you're reacting the wrong way. I said that people who didn't like the ad (was not talking about you specifically) were focusing on the wrong thing. And that's a pretty simple concept. When people are unhappy about something that really has no direct impact on their life it typically means they are focusing on the wrong things.


The question is are those people focusing on the wrong thing or was the message insufficiently conveyed? We can certainly go back and forth on what our personal feelings were about it but that's not all that interesting and usually devolves into snarky one-liners with little meat behind them.

The Kaepernick Nike ad was highly controversial, caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It has 27.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 0.07% meaning of all of the people who watched the video, 0.07% had such an issue with it they felt the need to express their displeasure.

In contrast, the Gillette Ad, also controversial, has also caused a ton of uproar, and at minimum, probably also upset a lot of MAGA hatters. It currently has 20.7M views with a negative engagement percentage of 4.9%

There are over 5 billion videos on YouTube. In 3 days, this video managed to crack the top 50 in terms of total negative sentiment and it is nearing now the top 30. This is an unprecedented level of negative sentiment that requires years and in many cases over a decade for a "bad" video to accomplish.

Remember the "Friday" video by Rebecca Black? It is one of the most disliked online videos ever made (currently around 7th all-time) and it has a negative sentiment percentage of 2.6%, meaning nearly double the people who saw the video disliked it as a function of total viewership.

There's a lot of finger wagger types out there saying the message is great, makes sense, but the numbers are suggesting the exact opposite of that. It appears that what people THINK is a sending a good message, may not actually be doing that at all.

Anyway, our personal opinions are less interesting to me. These types of messages about driving change are important. And it should be more interesting to us about how to effectively communicate important messages than the satisfaction folks seem to get about outraging the other side.


I don't think that it was insufficiently conveyed, but that of course is just an opinion not a fact.

The message seemed quite clear: this is what a lot of men were like, now we need to be better. Don't bully, harass, mansplain, be dismissive of bad behavior (boys will be boys).

The best a man can get was their tagline forever. It was assumed they meant the razor was the best razor a man could get [his hands on]. Now they're giving it a different meaning. The best a man can get [as a person]. And all of us are far from our best, so let's be better. And this is targeted towards men because their ads have always targeted men. And it's a real issue that we have in our country.

I'm not saying that this is the only way to interpret the message, as I've seen from the backlash there is a negative way to interpret it. I see a lot of grown men throwing a fit and getting defensive. And maybe there is something I am missing, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything and would love another perspective. So how do you see the ad? If you have issue with it I would like to know why. Not to tell you you're wrong but to understand a different perspective that isn't so obvious to myself.


I'm not an outrager, and I'm in the marketing and advertising industry, so I'm pretty desensitized to this stuff. So my personal feeling? Hokey ad campaign (i.e "not cool" who says that?) attempt at latching on to the new woke marketing trend in advertising. Everyone in advertising now wants people to think they're woke.

I assumed there'd be some backlash the first time I saw it, that's pretty obvious considering Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer sparked outrage, but the reaction we have seen so far has been surprising. It's a heck of a lot more than your extreme outrager on the fringes. The negativity is 50x greater than the negativity for the Kaepernick ad. So yeah, great question -- why?

I touched on it a couple pages back, but my feeling is comes down to the execution of the ad. Some pundits within the ad/marketing space are echoing this as well. I think there are two primary problems which boil down to the finger wagging style in which it was shot (which on the other hand will empower finger waggers) and the conflation of traditional masculinity with toxic masculinity.

If you want your target audience to change their behavior, you have to INSPIRE them to do so, not SHAME them into it. Shaming does work sometimes, but it will more often backfire.

On the conflation component. Think of it this way. If the video was simply a PSA about sexual assault being bad for instance -- no one would be upset by it. (Well, maybe a lame few as there always is). But once you put that on the same plane as wanting to talk to an attractive woman or allowing your kids to wrestle, you're going to get a lot of wtf reactions.

It's a short film, like a minute long, so there's a real challenge in telling your story in such a short span of time. Even still, a good lesson from this ad is that how you tell your story may arguably more important than the moral of your story.


I see your point regarding the finger wagging and shaming. And viewing it from that perspective it may be a bit ironic that it is viewed as a good/inspiring message to those who don't need to reminder and as bad/shaming to those who should be listening the most.

I completely agree that how you say something is often just as - if not more - important as what you say.

I still believe it is a good message while you are right, the delivery could have been better. I think those outraged are more outraged at being called out for displaying poor behavior than at how the message was conveyed. I think regardless of how it was delivered we wouldn't see much less outrage because they disliked the message and its implication that they have room to be better rather than the delivery.


Most if not all of the proponents of this message come from an angle of - I don’t need the message but it’s good because I think other people do.

I’ve yet to hear one person say - well, I needed to hear that message.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:52 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
I’ve yet to hear one person say - well, I needed to hear that message.


Neither have I. I have no particular issue with the message itself, though I don’t appreciate companies sticking political/social sermons into commercials just because I don’t want to hear that stuff during my TV time unless I choose to switch to.a political channel.

Setting that aside, the commercial was intended to be provocative, more with its imagery than its words. I hear people saying that the commercial started a discussion. That’s true. But what is the discussion about? From what I’ve seen here and elsewhere, the discussion is not about the purported message of the commercial. The discussion is about the provocative, divisive aspects of the commercial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:25 pm    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:

I still believe it is a good message while you are right, the delivery could have been better. I think those outraged are more outraged at being called out for displaying poor behavior than at how the message was conveyed. I think regardless of how it was delivered we wouldn't see much less outrage because they disliked the message and its implication that they have room to be better rather than the delivery.


Exactly. Though it makes it easier to mask that when you simply claim that you don't like the manner in which the message was delivered. But let's play along with this notion that it was the execution that is supposedly the root of the reaction. So the obvious question then is how do you make an ad that identifies a predominantly male behavior without focusing on males? How do you identify the behaviors without demonstrating them being exhibited by the people that engage in them.

On another note. I see people saying the ad is "divisive". It's not. It's the opposite. The ad promotes unity by saying that men should consider the feelings and security of women. It's an inherently inclusive message that says we should be considerate of others who are different than ourselves. Something isn't "divisive" simply because some people react badly to it. No reasonable person would ever say that an ad promoting the idea that people shouldn't call others by racial slurs is divisive just because some people are perfectly fine with using racial slurs and they don't like the ad. Point being a message isn't divisive simply because some people react negatively to it.

Let's look at another type of ad that calls out poor and dangerous behavior that is prevalent in society. I think people would agree that an ad telling people not to drive drunk is a reasonable message. And it is an ad that we all see constantly. But do people get indignant and attack the ad? Do people say "Screw that ad. I'm a driver. I don't drive drunk. How dare they assert that all drivers drive drunk! That's offensive to me as a driver" as they post an angry rant to M.A.D.D.'s social media page? Do people blast the ad for how the message was delivered or executed because it focused on a particular group of drivers? Further more, I think the majority of people would say that the message of not drinking and driving is one that most people would say they don't need to be reminded of. But do people get angry and blast the people that made the ad because the ad doesn't pertain to them? Or do they quietly just move on from seeing the ad, because hey, the ad is correct and it's no sweat off my back?

There is a saying, "Me thinks thou doth protest too much" . . . I think that's a pertinent saying to this discussion.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:55 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:

For a rational person, you sure refer to “mockery” and “laughter” alot


In what world is laughter irrational?


You do that in meetings at work? Someone has an idea you disagree with so you resort to mockery and laughter?

This is what you got from the Gillette ad?

Men, we can be better - let’s mock and laugh at each other.


Now your analogies, THEY are irrational.


So laughter and mockery is what you got from this Gillette ad?


Now you are just flat out not making any sense.

Quote:
This is how you strive to be better?

A fellow man voices a dissenting opinion - you respond w/ mockery and laughter?


So it's your assertion that just because someone expresses an idea, everyone else is obligated to sit back and not address the merits of that idea? That all "dissenting opinions" just have inherent merit because they were expressed? Seriously?

That's ridiculous.

So here's a question for you (though I know you will not answer it honestly). You have never laughed at a comment or opinion you found to be asinine or ridiculous? You've never called out anyone for espousing obviously questionable viewpoints?

Quote:
That’s your solution? That’s what you got out of this ad?


Again, you're making absolutely zero sense. But to answer the question, what I got from the ad is that men should treat women with respect and encourage their peers and children to do the same. And as a man who tries to live my life demonstrating decency and respect I support that message. Furthermore, I am in no way offended by that message, nor do I feel "targeted" because I am a man. You know why? Because I know the difference between calling out a behavior that men exhibit versus calling out all men because some men exhibit that behavior.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:09 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
But what is the discussion about? From what I’ve seen here and elsewhere, the discussion is not about the purported message of the commercial. The discussion is about the provocative, divisive aspects of the commercial.


I addressed this assertion in a reply to a different post, but the point is worth reiterating. Something is not "divisive" simply because some people react negatively to it.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:24 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
So here's a question for you (though I know you will not answer it honestly).


Why would you challenge my integrity? What evidence do you have that I've ever not been honest in any of my posts? Again, just more personal attacks.

You talk about discussing based on "the merits." Why don't you actually practice what you preach? When have I ever said anything personal against you? I've answered every question as honestly as I can. You might not agree, but you have no proof I've engaged in dishonesty at any point in this discussion.

DaMuleRules wrote:
You have never laughed at a comment or opinion you found to be asinine or ridiculous? You've never called out anyone for espousing obviously questionable viewpoints?


If it's a serious discussion and the person seems genuine in their answers - no way. I think it's absolutely rude to do so. And you can go back and look at all my posts - I'm not going to laugh, mock anyone that seems like thy are being genuine and honest. I've not mocked nor laughed at any of your comments.

Alot of the comments I've read in here, I can't believe. But, I've not said a word to come off as dismissive. It accomplishes nothing. That might work for you, that might be your style. So be it. I think it accomplishes nothing.

The whole point of a discussion is that - there's going to be dissenting viewpoints. You can choose to be dismissive of an entire viewpoint, that's your choice.


DaMuleRules wrote:
So it's your assertion that just because someone expresses an idea, everyone else is obligated to sit back and not address the merits of that idea? That all "dissenting opinions" just have inherent merit because they were expressed? Seriously?

That's ridiculous.


Well, you've actually been dismissive of an entire viewpoint - not just one person.

DaMuleRules wrote:
There's a reason the people who react defensively to the ad are getting mocked . . . a very good reason.


There you go - you feel everyone who reacts defensively deserves to get mocked. I don't know if you've heard every single defensive opinion out there, but your stance is every single defensive opinion deserves to get mocked - and you add "for a very good reason."

What reason would that be? What would be a good reason to mock every single defensive position?




Quote:


Again, you're making absolutely zero sense. But to answer the question, what I got from the ad is that men should treat women with respect and encourage their peers and children to do the same. And as a man who tries to live my life demonstrating decency and respect I support that message. Furthermore, I am in no way offended by that message, nor do I feel "targeted" because I am a man. You know why? Because I know the difference between calling out a behavior that men exhibit versus calling out all men because some men exhibit that behavior.


There you go - "encourage their peers." - and the message doesn't just limit itself to sexual assault.

It's also anti-bullying. It's also about giving "respect" to others. I don't think encouraging mockery of an entire opposing viewpoint is "encouraging" behavior. You?

It certainly lacks "respect"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3982
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:50 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
nickuku wrote:
I had a discussion about this last night with a group of about 8 people(3 males, 5 females).All 5 women agreed that its was great and the the 3 guys simply didn't care. I mean its OC so we might be a little insular but I have a hard time finding and understanding where the outrage is coming from.


Yup

Gillette’s goal was that women would love the ad. You’ll probably be hard
pressed to find a woman that didn’t like the ad. The ad is in support of women.



Winner winner chicken dinner! Who does the majority of shopping. Women. "Honey, you need razors? Ok I'll pick some up at the Piggly Wiggly." Now is it gonna be Gillette Shick or brand X? What's your guess?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:09 pm    Post subject:

ExPatLkrFan wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
nickuku wrote:
I had a discussion about this last night with a group of about 8 people(3 males, 5 females).All 5 women agreed that its was great and the the 3 guys simply didn't care. I mean its OC so we might be a little insular but I have a hard time finding and understanding where the outrage is coming from.


Yup

Gillette’s goal was that women would love the ad. You’ll probably be hard
pressed to find a woman that didn’t like the ad. The ad is in support of women.



Winner winner chicken dinner! Who does the majority of shopping. Women. "Honey, you need razors? Ok I'll pick some up at the Piggly Wiggly." Now is it gonna be Gillette Shick or brand X? What's your guess?



_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:11 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

Quote:


Nah - there’s a difference between target advertising and public sevice announcements

If you can find one public service announcement ad geared towards only one segment of the population and didn’t receive backlash - let me know


Because you deem it a PSA doesnt mean it is one. It's not publicly funded.

The company has a segment of consumers they have always marketed to. This ad is no different in that scope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:25 pm    Post subject:

My opinion, and it’s only my opinion, is that the people who hate the add tend to be among the demographic that makes the ad meaningful. And that demographic tends to dislike things that are not only not made specifically for them, but portray them less than reverentially.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:45 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
My opinion, and it’s only my opinion, is that the people who hate the add tend to be among the demographic that makes the ad meaningful. And that demographic tends to dislike things that are not only not made specifically for them, but portray them less than reverentially.


Let's not forget that there are people who say they don't dislike the ad, they just dislike the way that the ad "delivered it's message".
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:46 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:

Quote:


Nah - there’s a difference between target advertising and public sevice announcements

If you can find one public service announcement ad geared towards only one segment of the population and didn’t receive backlash - let me know


Because you deem it a PSA doesnt mean it is one. It's not publicly funded.

The company has a segment of consumers they have always marketed to. This ad is no different in that scope.


PSA's don't have to be publicly funded. If you feel that way, call it something else then. Call it pseudu-PSA. It makes no difference what title we label it. If you're going to tackle on some kind of social issue and address the public about it - you're going to have to tread lightly. It's different from a regular ad. Ads are a fantasy. Social issues/movements - those are real. You can stay in the realm of fantasy by just sticking to making ads. Then you can make it however you want. But, once you dip your toes into social issues/movements, now you're taking yourself out of the realm of fantasy and into the real world. Now you're going to be judged on how real you were, how accurate were you at portraying the issues.

And how the public takes that message from you depends on how real you were. This is not a male only problem. No one believes that. Only in fantasyland is it a male only problem.

The first social issue that Gillette tried to address was - raising boys - trying to get them out of that "boys will be boys" mentality. Now, in the real world, raising boys takes mom, dad, relatives, a village. That's the real world. In Gillettes world - raising boys = only men. Only men can solve this problem.

The second issue - anti-bullying, sexual assault/harassment, etc. In the real world, all types of people bully, harass, assault. Men do it. Women do it. All gender. And again, anyone can step in to stop it when they see it. If women see their girlfriends bullying other girls, they can step in as well. In Gillette's world, this is solely a male problem. Only males do this, and only males can stop this.

I mean, if you're going to attack a social issue - go ahead and provide the entire problem and solution. Why cut out half the population? I mean, especially for the "boys will be boys" parenting issue. How many single mothers out there watching that ad and thinking, geez, do I need a man to come in and teach my boys to not be boys?

But, also, I did ask you and you never answered. If Gillette made hair products for black men, and they made that same ad - and the message was - "Black men needs to be better"

What's your feelings on that?


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:35 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:49 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
My opinion, and it’s only my opinion, is that the people who hate the add tend to be among the demographic that makes the ad meaningful. And that demographic tends to dislike things that are not only not made specifically for them, but portray them less than reverentially.


Ordinarily I would agree with this. With any type of creative of this nature, and with creative in general, there is going to be some baseline level of "hate" you expect to get. That just comes with the territory.

But the data paints a picture that is well, well, beyond standary territory. The Gillette ad has roughly the same number of views as the equally controversial Kaepernick ad yet has a negative sentiment that is 50x larger. And I would argue that the Kaepernick ad was designed to spark controversy whereas the Gillette one was intended to inspire.

This video in less than one week is now in the top 0.0000035% in terms of negative sentiment yet sits among videos some of which have 7000% more views.

Let's put it this way -- if the DNC hired you to produce a video to inspire voters in the middle to vote blue, there would a baseline level of negativity you'd expect by virtue of being political. But if the video you produced ended up one of the most disliked videos in history, in 3 days, you would be fired. Now a lot of liberals might say "Ah ha! Got em! If the people who we intended to reach hated it, we did our job."

But that should only be the reaction if the goal was to rile up non-liberals as opposed to inspire them.

What's not interesting is why SOME people didn't like the video. Every video is disliked by someone. And some videos are disliked more than others. That's expected. What is interesting (and being discussed within the industry by some) is why is it disliked to such unprecedented levels? Why is it that for every viewer that liked it there are 2 that disliked it? At best if all women liked it and all men hated it, that ratio should be 1:1 or so.

For context -- it is significantly more likely to win the SuperLotto Plus (1 in 42M) than to create a video in the top 35 most disliked on YouTube (1 in 143M).

The data shows we are well beyond "haters gonna hate" territory and into "people do hate" territory and so if the intended message is an important one, I think it is worth exploring how to better deliver it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:24 am    Post subject:

For those interested -- here's an ad produced by the same director. It's called "This Girl Can" and in it she aims to get women to exercise. Really good execution.

Notice the stylistic difference. They did not show obese women sitting on the couch with their gut spilling out eating junk food or a woman crying while watching a chick flick and devouring a massive tub of ice cream only to have another woman come out of the shadows and say "Not cool".

Instead, they highlight women of all shapes, sizes, ages, and backgrounds, and show them what is cool, pushing themselves to better their health. Read the comments and look how inspired its viewers were. Same director, completely different reactions.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:29 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
So here's a question for you (though I know you will not answer it honestly).


Why would you challenge my integrity? What evidence do you have that I've ever not been honest in any of my posts? Again, just more personal attacks.


Because the intellectual dishonesty you have engaged in with with your nonsensical analogies in an attempt to challenge the integrity of others. And it's pretty clear from the record that any attempt to painty yourself as a victim of personal attacks is incredibly rich in its irony.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:49 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
So here's a question for you (though I know you will not answer it honestly).


Why would you challenge my integrity? What evidence do you have that I've ever not been honest in any of my posts? Again, just more personal attacks.


Because the intellectual dishonesty you have engaged in with with your nonsensical analogies in an attempt to challenge the integrity of others. And it's pretty clear from the record that any attempt to painty yourself as a victim of personal attacks is incredibly rich in its irony.


ok, so your whole issue with me now is that I've been dishonest? And I've been attacking the integrity of others?

Here, I thought we were talking about the Gillette commercial.

You've been the only person around here using such language as: mockery, laughter, ridiculous, nonsense, dishonesty.

You're the only one around here that comes off confrontational and dismissive.

And again, for a proponent of this ad calling for men to step up, seems you've missed the point.

Quote:
Dude, wtf are you even talking about? Once again you get so intent on trying to be some sort of contrarian that you become a ridiculous mess of nonsense.


Quote:
That's stunning because you were so far off base in regards to the "boys will be boys" sequence it was laughable.


Quote:
There's a reason the people who react defensively to the ad are getting mocked . . . a very good reason.


Quote:
So here's a question for you (though I know you will not answer it honestly).


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:01 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
So here's a question for you (though I know you will not answer it honestly).


Why would you challenge my integrity? What evidence do you have that I've ever not been honest in any of my posts? Again, just more personal attacks.


Because the intellectual dishonesty you have engaged in with with your nonsensical analogies in an attempt to challenge the integrity of others. And it's pretty clear from the record that any attempt to painty yourself as a victim of personal attacks is incredibly rich in its irony.


ok, so your whole issue with me now is that I've been dishonest? And I've been attacking the integrity of others?

Here, I thought we were talking about the Gillette commercial.


Exhibit A
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:08 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Not interested in wasting my time engaging someone who can only use straw-men and conflation.


starting now......?


For a guy that's not interested, you sure have alot to say

For a guy that's not bothered, you sure are confrontational and angry

For a guy preaching about honesty, you sure don't keep your words


Fact of the matter - there's been 2 vocal dissenting opinions in this thread. Neither of us have engaged in any type of confrontational nor dismissive language. It is YOU who wishes to take the discussion in that direction (for whatever reason). Rationalize it however you want, but it is a reflection on YOU. No one else in this thread has come off as confrontational.

Confrontational debate/discussion is unproductive to me.

The irony is that - that's the opposite of the "men needs to be better" message. Being better has nothing to do with trying to get confrontational.

Being confrontational and dismissive is the "toxic masculinity" the ad was referring to.


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:44 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
So here's a question for you (though I know you will not answer it honestly).


Why would you challenge my integrity? What evidence do you have that I've ever not been honest in any of my posts? Again, just more personal attacks.


Because the intellectual dishonesty you have engaged in with with your nonsensical analogies in an attempt to challenge the integrity of others. And it's pretty clear from the record that any attempt to painty yourself as a victim of personal attacks is incredibly rich in its irony.


ok, so your whole issue with me now is that I've been dishonest? And I've been attacking the integrity of others?

Here, I thought we were talking about the Gillette commercial.


Exhibit A


Hey guys, "not cool".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:40 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
My opinion, and it’s only my opinion, is that the people who hate the add tend to be among the demographic that makes the ad meaningful. And that demographic tends to dislike things that are not only not made specifically for them, but portray them less than reverentially.


Maybe, but what about the demographic that likes the ad? They like seeing the other demographic disparaged. You can say the same thing about anything that is divisive. If you approve of the message, then you disapprove of the people who react negatively to the message.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:55 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Not interested in wasting my time engaging someone who can only use straw-men and conflation.


starting now......?


Ummm, you asked questions. I answered them.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:01 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
My opinion, and it’s only my opinion, is that the people who hate the add tend to be among the demographic that makes the ad meaningful. And that demographic tends to dislike things that are not only not made specifically for them, but portray them less than reverentially.


Maybe, but what about the demographic that likes the ad? They like seeing the other demographic disparaged. You can say the same thing about anything that is divisive. If you approve of the message, then you disapprove of the people who react negatively to the message.


As I said before, just because some people react negatively to something it doesn't make that thing "divisive". There was nothing divisive about the ad in either content or execution.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:05 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Not interested in wasting my time engaging someone who can only use straw-men and conflation.


starting now......?


Ummm, you asked questions. I answered them.


Sure I’m always interested in engaging in conversation

I thought you weren’t interested in “wasting time engaging someone who can only use straw-men and conflation”

Guess you’ve changed your mind? Guess I’ve offered you something more than straw-men and conflation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB