I agree with noods.
I disagree, adverts have a history of being a platform for discussion and I gave examples of ads which do that with no societal or political undertone, I fail to see how this is different.For what I gather, we are now in agreement that an advert is not a platform for discussion, but a subject. And therefore, accusing an ad of virtue signalling does not mean that we're de-platforming the subject or discouraging discussion on it, something we're quite merrily doing here and which was my point. Secondly we're also seemingly in agreement that it's disingenuous. What you're saying however, is that it's all right so long the message is positive and it achieves bringing the discussion onto the masses. What I'm challenging here is that the right message delivered in the wrong tone and by the wrong people can actually have a negative effect.
You also posit that the message must become a topic for discussion somehow otherwise how do we move on and progress? And that P&G are helping do this, offering the example of your 6th form discussions. I would argue that these subjects are not enhanced by corporations riding them for publicity. The BLM movement and Kaepernick's kneeling succeeded in bringing the problem of social injustice for African-Americans to the forefront, and hopefully to classrooms too. I don't think Nike's Kaepernick advert offered anything genuine beyond exposure for Nike, or that it enriched the discussion already being had. By definition a corporation will only endorse a message when it's calculated that the message resonates with the majority of its customer base and therefore have a positive financial impact. And in cases of large multinationals where their customer base is basically... everyone, it means they've accepted this message is the mainstream view. The subject of toxic masculinity has been in the news for some time, started by the #MeToo movement, if this hasn't reached classrooms then we're in trouble. Gillette are not on anything new here.
As for the subtlety question, it depends who you are trying to reach. You take the approach that the injustice suffered by the victims means it should be screamed loudly and boldly from every platform until the message drills home. It's a combative approach and I agree that loud and bold is great for bringing an issue to the front of the agenda. You can't always be timid. It's also great for putting pressure on politicians. Once a subject becomes mainstream though, you gotta be a more careful and selective about screaming it in people's faces and more selective about where the message comes from and how. The ones who are already on your side, why are you screaming it at for? The ones who are resilient to change will they be screamed down? Unlikely. You either write them off or you work on a more subtle way to educate them and change them over to your views over time. Horses for courses sort of thing.
I only noticed this after they put a white guy and girl in the rap video.Also, thank god we have those two black guys stopping the two white men from being assholes .
Says the guy discussing the video online, thus actively increasing interest in the video.In a way the most pathetic thing about all these advertising campaigns are the easily manipulated hordes on social media - on the right and on the left - jumping into action tweeting and retweeting the fecking ad like crazy, then keeping it front and centre with a load of pointless bickering with each other. While the PR agency behind it rub their hands with glee.
You’ve been played, suckers!
Heh. Fair point. Although I don’t see why anyone would hear about this ad for the first time on the basis of my posts in this thread. If anyone on redcafe is guilty of flogging razors it’s @R.N7Says the guy discussing the video online, thus actively increasing interest in the video.
I have the OP on ignore!My thoughts are that you should look two threads down
It was worth the waitcant wait to see what swansonstache and hobbers think about this
Woke. Respect.Given their social conscience I assume the next razor they'll be launching will be a reusable straight razor which can be resharpened and lasts for years?
I mean there's billions of disposable razors sold each year, such needless waste when the world is already drowning in plastic waste.
Yeah, the whole thing is not worth getting the knickers in a twist over this, by any stretch, but interesting that it showed up my Beeb news feed this morning.Wait people are now making this about race, because a few black guys were the good guys?
Welp that's my cue, enjoy brokflakes.
No-one is upset by the message, or shouldn't be anyway.I've not watched the ad but if the underlying message is "Hey let's not sexually harass women and men need to call other men out for it" then I have no idea why anyone would be upset about it unless they're thick as shit or have done similar themselves. The BBC posted some tweets (which I really wish they'd stop doing) on their article and it's always from someone called something like John0934635473 clearly a bot or a shill paid to be pretend outraged by this stuff and 'boycotting' the company.
Your daily dose of balanced and rational opinion has been served.It was worth the wait
I'm going to print out that post and spread it on my lawn.Your daily dose of balanced and rational opinion has been served.
Exactly. Gillette have smashed this out of the park.In a way the most pathetic thing about all these advertising campaigns are the easily manipulated hordes on social media - on the right and on the left - jumping into action tweeting and retweeting the fecking ad like crazy, then keeping it front and centre with a load of pointless bickering with each other. While the PR agency behind it rub their hands with glee.
You’ve been played, suckers!
The true equivalent would be if Veet made an ad telling women to "man up and start demanding that promotion at work", instead of just incessantly whining about the wage gap on twitter.If they made a Venus ad telling their customers to stop all the fake rape allegations, it would all seem a bit ridiculous.
The same advertising agency made the "this girl can" adverts that were around a few years ago.The true equivalent would be if Veet made an ad telling women to "man up and start demanding that promotion at work", instead of just incessantly whining about the wage gap on twitter.
Not it’s notThe true equivalent would be if Veet made an ad telling women to "man up and start demanding that promotion at work", instead of just incessantly whining about the wage gap on twitter.
I was thinking this, when was the last time anyone talked about Gillette before today?In a way the most pathetic thing about all these advertising campaigns are the easily manipulated hordes on social media - on the right and on the left - jumping into action tweeting and retweeting the fecking ad like crazy, then keeping it front and centre with a load of pointless bickering with each other. While the PR agency behind it rub their hands with glee.
You’ve been played, suckers!
Yeah probablySo... you don't disagree?
You've agreed that the message is fine but disagree on how it's conveyed. Fair enough, I actually agree with you that highlighting positive behaviour rather than showcasing and admonishing bad one is a more effective educationally. But I also disagree on who it's conveyed by and for what purpose. As @sullydnl brilliantly put it:
Procter & Gamble (Gillette's owning group) is public-listed, multi-national corporation and the only thing it cares about is bottom line. This is a commercial shot and put out at a cost, with no other aim than to increase their revenue. It can be hard for people to take moral lessons from corporations, especially lessons so crudely delivered. The advert might work for its intended purpose (revenue generation) but the method of delivery of the message could end up having a negative effect in the discussion of societal change we're having. And the thing is P&G won't give a toss, so long as the prime objective is met.
1) The point is that you don't insult your target audience. You also don't fix a problem by generalising it.1. Men is their target audience why would they address girl on girl bullying?
2. Yes some men do stand there and laugh watching their kids fighting, in fact some even encourage it, video it, and put it on youtube.
I think their motives are likely disingenuous but there isn't anything wrong with the message.
Do you honestly think any man will watch this advert and behave more positively as a result though? I think if you highlight positive behaviours, and try to make those seem desirable, you at least have a chance. With this advert, you are just going to get people moaning about it, feeling insulted, baffled, or finding it funny because it has pissed off someone who they don't like (Piers Morgan).I agree with this part of what you said - however for that message to come across clearly for all, the PR gurus at Gillette thought they need to show the side that is not acceptable first because for some men it might not register what they are trying to say in the advert
Don't think the same impact would be achieved if had if they had shown a man holding the door open for an old lady or getting off their seat to let a pregnant woman sit down etc.
Well said!Not it’s not
If it actually were, you might understand how insulting and incredibly stupid your statement is.Seems to be a crime to be born a white male these days.