What does the broflakes of the Caf make of it?
New Gillette ad
- Thread starter R.N7
- Start date
What does the broflakes of the Caf make of it?
Good ad but I don't understand some pretending like some are outraged at the ad.
Pure idiocy on the level of that Kylie whomever she is Pepsi ad, they're getting slaughtered for it.
A multi-billion dollar shaving company for men telling men how they should act towards women in a preachy and condescending manner. WCGW?
A multi-billion dollar shaving company for men telling men how they should act towards women in a preachy and condescending manner. WCGW?
Hadn't heard about it so just Googled it and saw this:
I've not watched the ad yet but I'm a fan if it pissed this cnut off.
Also this opening line of the Guardian article:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I've not watched the ad yet but I'm a fan if it pissed this cnut off.
Also this opening line of the Guardian article:
Is a good indication they're doing something right.
Don't see an issue with the ad to be honest
I'll just leave this here
It's not the message that's the problem, it's that it's the Battlefield Earth of commercials. About as subtle and sophisticated as the 80s ads it supposedly criticizes and is just patronizing to all parties. Think it was put together by whoever made the 'I'd buy that for a dollar' commercial on Robocop.
there's nothing wrong with the underlying message., but what reason do fecking Gillette have to make an advert like that?
it's weird.
Brands getting political is always a bit of an eye roller for me. Gillette want people to buy razors, lots and lots of razors, I'm not buying for a second they're interested in society.
Other than that I think the ad is well put together and will do exactly what Gillette want it to do in getting people talking about their brand.
Also:
Other than that I think the ad is well put together and will do exactly what Gillette want it to do in getting people talking about their brand.
Also:
this suits me down to the ground.
See the video on Starbucks above.
They have probably seen that Nike and Adidas have had positive (in balance sheet terms) reactions to certain issues, and decided to try and tap in.
Their audience is predominantly male.. so..
I think its quite good. Whether companies should be dictating social change is an entirely different argument altogether but it looks like they set up a non-profit which is cool I guess.
They always have to be honest, possibly unintentionally and usually negatively
I didn't mind it at all, no more condescending than a tech or bank advert. Not sure how anyone could be so fragile that this could boil their piss.
I don't disagree with the message at all, on the contrary, but I just find the repetition of the message from all possible sources quite boring. But hey if it achieves something, then whatevs.
I have my doubts though that people who exhibit this kind of behaviour will get enlightenment from a shaving advert.
I have my doubts though that people who exhibit this kind of behaviour will get enlightenment from a shaving advert.
It does carry a certain significance doesn't it? Gillette is an iconic mens brand for the best part of a century. However they could just be doing this for the same reason Nike did the Kaepernick ad, to increase and refresh their brand awareness.
I would've thought that more men would like this idea?
When it comes to topics like harassment, sexual assault, rape, domestic violence, bullying etc I see more and more men talk about how the dialogue is always about women, not enough people talk about male victims and as men they don't have the space to discuss their feelings, emotions and thoughts.
All companies are political to a degree, and all marketing has agendas. At least this agenda is positive.
I don't understand why anyone wouldn't like this.
When it comes to topics like harassment, sexual assault, rape, domestic violence, bullying etc I see more and more men talk about how the dialogue is always about women, not enough people talk about male victims and as men they don't have the space to discuss their feelings, emotions and thoughts.
All companies are political to a degree, and all marketing has agendas. At least this agenda is positive.
I don't understand why anyone wouldn't like this.
When I heard about the ad I thought here we go again. But after watching it I've got no issue, I thought it was good and tastefully done.
Not watched it but if it has pissed of Pierce Morgan, than it's probably great.
It's a bit of virtue signalling wrapped in marketing, they are getting behind the message to increase their profile. Any controversy created is an added bonus for them as the discussion makes them relevant.
The message, like I said, is without a doubt positive but even a positive message can be boring and counter-productive when it's coming from all angles and repeated ad-nauseam. You can like ice-cream and it can be your favourite thing, but having ice-cream everyday would bore you too.
Like the advert doesn't upset me or anything, it just makes me roll my eyes tbh.
That's the positive I'm focusing on too.
The ad is probably great for Gillette in terms of marketing.
I've not watched it myself. I don't buy their overpriced razors, I doubt I'd buy their "sincere" commentary on social issues.
I've not watched it myself. I don't buy their overpriced razors, I doubt I'd buy their "sincere" commentary on social issues.
The outrage over this is hilariously ironic. All from the types of people who spend much of their lives telling other people not to get so offended by every little thing. It won't encourage me to buy gillette but I've absolutely no issue with it whatsoever either as a man or as a father.
I don't understand that argument - who or what platform can discuss social problems such as this, without being accused of virtue signalling?
By referring to it as such doesn't encourage discussion or debate, nor does it increase exposure to the problem - which is exactly the reasoning used by many men when it comes to incidents that surround abuse & violence, is it not?
So how should this problem be approached?
It's cringy, but that's its only crime
As cynical as I am about corporations taking political stands, I thought it was a decent enough ad. It’s also great for identifying who’s a cnut and who isn’t.
It makes me want to invest in a razor blade and start at the wrists.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I wonder do the likes of Piers Morgan and James Woods realise that by very publicly announcing their intentions to boycott a product in this way they will be giving the company involved exactly the kind of exposure they were looking for.
James Woods is annoyed too? This is my new favourite ad campaign and I've not even seen the video yet.
Cool. Now drop the damn price of your razors, so I can replace my old one.
It's well meaning and I'll applaud anything that riles up Piers Morgan, but I do think the execution is hamfisted and the advert feels quite corporate, sterile, and inauthentic.
Any platform. A commercial advert is not a discussion platform though.
It's unrelated to me. The discussion and debate about something is not emboldened or discouraged by calling an advert what it is. For example there's heated discussion on the Brexit topic. But if I see companies trying to stay relevant by taking sides on that topic through advertising, I'm equally gonna call it out. Doesn't mean I'm discouraging discussion on the topic in the slightest, am I? Discussion, debate, information gathering all that stuff is good but none of those are on offer.
The problem is mainly an educational one, since the right laws seem to be mostly in place. One is educating kids and the other is educating adults. The former is technically easier than the latter because with kids you can enforce behaviour and understanding in schools, so the state has some means. Adults are harder cause they can be resilient to change and if they are the type that doesn't read or watch the news, it's that much harder.
I'm a fan of subtlety. People in the 21st century in the West watch movies or TV shows, listen to music and play computer games a lot. Through these means you can bring education in a subtle way. Behaviour that in older generations would be deemed normal by characters would now be admonished. The message will slowly get across, so long as it's subtle. If you print it on the side bus (metaphorically) and make everything about it, people can react negatively to it.
Bear in mind that societal change is slow and can take a generation or two. And social ills never really eradicate, they merely get diminished. Don't mean we shouldn't strive for it and encourage it of course.
If your ethical outlook is considerate of crass corporate moralising then you are the reason this is all fecked.
That type of advertising is sickening. Imagine the absolute gimp forwarding that concept. How inspiring a shaving product can teach us all something, feck off.
Haven’t watched it. No doubt it’s harmless but toxic right wingers (men’s rights activists included) are the biggest snowflakes of them all so not surprised it’s got some gammons in a tizy.
And if it’s not that but rather a ‘the ad is stupid’ perspective then grow up please. Advertising/marketing is bullshit all over. Don’t pretend this is new.
And if it’s not that but rather a ‘the ad is stupid’ perspective then grow up please. Advertising/marketing is bullshit all over. Don’t pretend this is new.
I assume/hope you're not referring to me but it doesn't 'boil my piss' or annoy me. I just thinks it's really dumb. I also think anyone who takes an advert from a multi-billion dollar company who just want to generate publicity seriously, either in a positive or negative light, is dumb.
Basically, Piers Morgan.
Sorry, but this point is nonsense.
The ad was written and directed by Trey Parker,Matt Stone and Chris Morris.
Cracking argument mate. Keep them coming.
Why not? We discuss adverts all the time. If it's on TV it can invite discussion in people's homes & their places of work - see John Lewis & Cocoa Cola christmas ads, Pepsi football ads etc.
Plus it was also displayed on twitter & other social media - which is the right platform for discussion - so I don't see the problem.
By calling it virtue signalling you are implying the intention behind the message is disingenuous.
That discourages debate around the actual message, which is exactly what's happening - you can see it in the reasoning used by everyone who opposes the advert. Far more people are talking about why the ad is condescending or too PC, not enough people are talking about the environment which has enabled the need for this advert to be created in the first place.
How do laws & schools have any insight on this? Just because laws are in place doesn't mean they are affecting social change - quite the opposite actually when you look at the stats on things like domestic violence against men, rape when men are the victims, parenting laws for the fathers etc.
In what way can any of this addressed in school, or at home? Won't schools also be accused of virtue signalling and bringing PC discussions in a place of education etc.
The law certainly isn't doing enough, and hasn't done enough for many decades, so how or when will that change? Politicians aren't going to draw up a bill unless it benefits their constituents - their constituents aren't going to suddenly rally around this topic unless there is societal change that comes about from discussions of issues - and that can all start from something small or unexpected, including this advert.
People in the 21st century do & watch all of those things, and through those means you can bring about education - this is a commercial that can be shown on tv shows, radios, youtube etc - so why can't it also bring about subtle change?
Also - why does it need to be subtle? Especially in light of #MeToo & #BLM, there's an opportunity to bring about social change with a big impact in the same way as those campaigns.