Gilette Advert

[Guest]

Curious to see what their advertising approach will be for their women's line of razors. Pretty sure that was one of the brands caught up in the Pink Tax 'scandal'.

[whoareyaaa]

if its being talked about then that's all they care about, they got Harry breathing down there neck

[Detroit Blues]

1 hour ago, Jattdogg said:

Im not going to buy any more gilette  products or suddenly be more aware though (because i already am aware). if you do buy more product because of this then you are a stupid simpleton (i dont mean you personally unless of course you ordered 20 blades last night from walmart)

People don't necessarily have to think consciously - "I really agree with this, from now on I'll only buy Gillette products." But the more the word Gillette gets repeated and the more the advert gets re-played, the more it will influence your purchasing habits subconsciously. Values signaled from advertising get tied to the brand. So when you're scanning the shelves at the supermarket, and you see Gillette, your brain recognizes the brand it and triggers a response. It's better to be noticed on the shelves, and passed up, than not noticed at all. 

 

This kind of thing is in all kinds of adverts. Buy this beer because it shows you're sophisticated, buy this type of truck because it will show how rugged and manly you are, etc. The reason it works is because the average person is a simpleton . Another way of thinking about it is, if it didn't work, why would these companies be spending millions on this kind of shit?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 16 January 2019 by Detroit Blues

[Captain...]

3 hours ago, Detroit Blues said:

People don't necessarily have to think consciously - "I really agree with this, from now on I'll only buy Gillette products." But the more the word Gillette gets repeated and the more the advert gets re-played, the more it will influence your purchasing habits subconsciously. Values signaled from advertising get tied to the brand. So when you're scanning the shelves at the supermarket, and you see Gillette, your brain recognizes the brand it and triggers a response. It's better to be noticed on the shelves, and passed up, than not noticed at all. 

 

This kind of thing is in all kinds of adverts. Buy this beer because it shows you're sophisticated, buy this type of truck because it will show how rugged and manly you are, etc. The reason it works is because the average person is a simpleton . Another way of thinking about it is, if it didn't work, why would these companies be spending millions on this kind of shit?

 

 

 

 

 

You also have think of brand partnerships. By showing a sense of social responsibility they will be seen favourably as event sponsors corporate partners for brands that also want to be seen as socially responsible. 

 

All we need now now is a spike in protest sales as manly men buy their products just to video them melting them on a bbq while boys be boys in front of them and they will have a clean sweep.

 

Meanwhile the ad men have already started plotting their “accidentally” sexist lady shave adverts which sends the twitter sphere into an even bigger frenzy as millions re-tweet the video of their pink over priced lady razors and this one screaming hypocrites until their heads explode.

Edited 16 January 2019 by Captain...

[Jattdogg]

6 hours ago, Detroit Blues said:

People don't necessarily have to think consciously - "I really agree with this, from now on I'll only buy Gillette products." But the more the word Gillette gets repeated and the more the advert gets re-played, the more it will influence your purchasing habits subconsciously. Values signaled from advertising get tied to the brand. So when you're scanning the shelves at the supermarket, and you see Gillette, your brain recognizes the brand it and triggers a response. It's better to be noticed on the shelves, and passed up, than not noticed at all. 

 

This kind of thing is in all kinds of adverts. Buy this beer because it shows you're sophisticated, buy this type of truck because it will show how rugged and manly you are, etc. The reason it works is because the average person is a simpleton . Another way of thinking about it is, if it didn't work, why would these companies be spending millions on this kind of shit?

 

 

 

 

 

I get that but i so dont fall for that stuff. I research and over analyze things before i buy  because im shaped that way lol.

 

I grow a shorter beard anyways so no need for razors or shaving cream anymore!

[Detroit Blues]

2 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

I get that but i so dont fall for that stuff. I research and over analyze things before i buy  because im shaped that way lol.

 

I grow a shorter beard anyways so no need for razors or shaving cream anymore!

I tell people lots of reasons I have a beard. The real reason is ... I just don't want to have to shave my face every day

 

[ozleicester]

12 hours ago, Detroit Blues said:

People don't necessarily have to think consciously - "I really agree with this, from now on I'll only buy Gillette products." But the more the word Gillette gets repeated and the more the advert gets re-played, the more it will influence your purchasing habits subconsciously. Values signaled from advertising get tied to the brand. So when you're scanning the shelves at the supermarket, and you see Gillette, your brain recognizes the brand it and triggers a response. It's better to be noticed on the shelves, and passed up, than not noticed at all. 

 

This kind of thing is in all kinds of adverts. Buy this beer because it shows you're sophisticated, buy this type of truck because it will show how rugged and manly you are, etc. The reason it works is because the average person is a simpleton . Another way of thinking about it is, if it didn't work, why would these companies be spending millions on this kind of shit?

 

 

 

 

 

As an addendum to this.. it is also about positive reinforcement, when you see the Gillette brand and you use Gillette.. you (supposedly) feel better about your buying decisions.

 

It why elite companies (Rolex etc)  continue to advertise, or more likely sponsor people/events, even though only a small % of people will buy their products... the ad/sponsorship makes those feel good about buying and makes them buy again.

 

 

[ozleicester]

[Guest]

 

On 16/01/2019 at 20:16, Detroit Blues said:

People don't necessarily have to think consciously - "I really agree with this, from now on I'll only buy Gillette products." But the more the word Gillette gets repeated and the more the advert gets re-played, the more it will influence your purchasing habits subconsciously. Values signaled from advertising get tied to the brand. So when you're scanning the shelves at the supermarket, and you see Gillette, your brain recognizes the brand it and triggers a response. It's better to be noticed on the shelves, and passed up, than not noticed at all. 

 

This kind of thing is in all kinds of adverts. Buy this beer because it shows you're sophisticated, buy this type of truck because it will show how rugged and manly you are, etc. The reason it works is because the average person is a simpleton . Another way of thinking about it is, if it didn't work, why would these companies be spending millions on this kind of shit?

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with this ad(from a marketing perspective, not necessarily a moral one), and the difference from typical aspirational ads, is that it feels smug and patronising and very much could be perceived as suggesting that if you're not 100% on our side then you're almost certainly 100% on the other (wrong) side.

 

Its closest comparison might be the 'mac guy vs windows guy' adverts. The apple advert suggested some ppl were dim and uncool, but was at least little bit light-hearted which softened the blow, yet was still not well received. This one presents much more serious accusations in a much more serious way, so the reaction is likely to be even stronger. It is an interesting idea that they might be using it as a supporting campaign to maybe round out the majority of their typical marketing.  Quite blunt and jarring initially, but in 6 months time will act as a footnote reminding the public of their humanity. But who knows, sometimes advertisers get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes they're 'of the times' and sometimes they're just incredibly short-sighted.

[ozleicester]

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/men-of-australia-it-s-time-to-pick-your-side-20190117-p50rz7.html?fbclid=IwAR3G65VKBGfOKWzrvOHtV4CTWcjO5gf4lmCqaZHlF5n3QntYq9yMUxN1nQM

[UPinCarolina]

On 15/01/2019 at 17:39, the fox said:

@Finnegan some men are truly emotionally abused and filled with insecurities and that's why some are triggered. 

 

For me, Catcalling and Bullying are a manifestation of all the pressure males are facing to prove they the big dog. (For the most part ofcourse). Those are symptoms to true toxic masculinity and the bad mental health of males, not the cause of it. A man got pancreatic Cancer and his skin turned yellow, you can't tell him that his yellow skin caused him cancer, can you?

 

 

Why bully? Because most Kids are pushed to prove their manhood and their little brain can't come up with a better plan then being physical. Catcalling is pretty much the same. It serves no really purpose but to get a laugh out of the lads or show how alpha one is.

 

 

From me, some men are truly mentally traumatized and the saddest part is, they don't even know it. Now Gillette touched on their insecurities and only added more responsibility. 

 

 

We will always have men acting like that unless we get to the core of the problem. Instead of telling kids to stop bullying, just ask them why? Get to the real problem.

Great post.

[the fox]

.

Edited 18 January 2019 by the fox

[Guest]

A website that tries to bring you views from the left and the right (U.S. admittedly)

 

https://www.allsides.com/blog/gillette’s-new-ad-biased-against-men-or-championing-needed-social-change?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=BlogPost&utm_campaign=GilletteNewAd

[Christoph]

Never understood why people enjoy being those double/triple blade razors. I swear by disposable single blade bic razors. They do a much better job than any double/triple blade fancy razor. 

[urban.spaceman]

12 hours ago, ozleicester said:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/men-of-australia-it-s-time-to-pick-your-side-20190117-p50rz7.html?fbclid=IwAR3G65VKBGfOKWzrvOHtV4CTWcjO5gf4lmCqaZHlF5n3QntYq9yMUxN1nQM

Quote

Guess what, men? You are all implicated.

 

Yes, I’d like to personally apologise for my involvement in the murder of that poor girl. 

 

 

[ozleicester]

10 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Yes, I’d like to personally apologise for my involvement in the murder of that poor girl. 

 

 

The very next line...

 

"It doesn't mean you are all responsible for it, but as you exist in a class of people who maintain these rights and privileges over others it is up to you to be active in destroying that."

Edited 18 January 2019 by ozleicester

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

The very next line...

 

"It doesn't mean you are all responsible for it, but as you exist in a class of people who maintain these rights and privileges over others it is up to you to be active in destroying that."

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but how can a person be implicated, but not responsible for it? ?

 

If nothing else I think the writer's choice of wording is poor throughout this article. 

 

 

[ozleicester]

4 minutes ago, foxtonhin said:

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but how can a person be implicated, but not responsible for it? ?

 

If nothing else I think the writer's choice of wording is poor throughout this article. 

 

 

 

Implicate - convey (a meaning) indirectly through what one says, rather than stating it explicitly.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

 

Implicate - convey (a meaning) indirectly through what one says, rather than stating it explicitly.

"" We’re expected to monitor and modify our behaviour to "prevent" harm, but we are never allowed to discuss the reality of that in case it makes men feel somehow implicated.

 

Guess what, men? You are all implicated""

 

Dunno, but that sounds more like the first definition to me. 

1. Show (someone) to be involved in a crime.  " he had been implicated in a financial scandal"

[ozleicester]

3 minutes ago, foxtonhin said:

"" We’re expected to monitor and modify our behaviour to "prevent" harm, but we are never allowed to discuss the reality of that in case it makes men feel somehow implicated.

 

Guess what, men? You are all implicated""

 

Dunno, but that sounds more like the first definition to me. 

1. Show (someone) to be involved in a crime.  " he had been implicated in a financial scandal"

Im sorry you feel that way.

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

The very next line...

 

"It doesn't mean you are all responsible for it, but as you exist in a class of people who maintain these rights and privileges over others it is up to you to be active in destroying that."

1. What rights and privileges am I supposed to have over others?

2. What does she expect me to actually do?

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

1. What rights and privileges am I supposed to have over others?

2. What does she expect me to actually do?

Im not going to spend hours arguing this.. i figure in too many peoples whinges already..

 

All i will say is.. if you read the article, both of your questions are answered.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Im sorry you feel that way.

 very kind of you, but I don't think it's anything you need to apologise for.  

 

I don't want to be a grammar nazi, I just don't think that they've done a very good job of communicating their point.  

[urban.spaceman]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

Im not going to spend hours arguing this.. i figure in too many peoples whinges already..

 

All i will say is.. if you read the article, both of your questions are answered.

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, foxtonhin said:

 very kind of you, but I don't think it's anything you need to apologise for.  

 

I don't want to be a grammar nazi, I just don't think that they've done a very good job of communicating their point.  

its like saying " im sorry your friend is dead".. im not apologising, im genuinely sorry.