Is fat shaming really a bad thing in American culture? Is it? Are those commercials that have dumbed-down a person's diabetes risk "shaming"? If they are, how is that bad? Sometimes people need to be told to ****ing quit eating and hit the gym, and there are many who need to be told in more direct ways.

And, is being beautiful and caring for your man's needs really a bad thing? Should women who have put the work in to be skinny and beautiful be shamed for it instead of rewarded?

Back when Gillette didn't suck and made sharp razors:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6205/6...08c2b9ee_b.jpg

I didn't buy any, though I haven't bought anything other than a Gillette razor in decades.

But I'm not the target market here. They're trying to hook a younger generation who cares deeply about social issues and haven't developed strong brand loyalty yet. As you said, they're not going to lose people from this because people either like the product or don't at this point. Raising awareness and brand recognition among younger people is the goal, and the more discussion about it, the better they see it.

Here's a graph of how many people have searched for "Gillette" on Google over the past 15 years. Yeah, I think they're happy.

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/trends_nrtr/1709_RC01/embed_loader.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> trends.embed.renderExploreWidget("TIMESERIES", {"comparisonItem":[{"keyword":"gillette","geo":"US","time":"2004-01-01 2019-01-24"}],"category":0,"property":""}, {"exploreQuery":"date=all&geo=US&q=gillette","guestPath":"https://trends.google.com:443/trends/embed/"}); </script>

I haven't used their products for a few years now. That doesn't mean that I want some company preaching to me about how as a man I am a problem and I need to fix my masculine ways.

I expect telling me why I should spend my money on your product or service to come from companies. I expect messages of individual improvement to come from church.

They're using social outrage to target a generation who hate's capitalism......so that they can make more money.

Yep. It's ironic all around when you really think about it.

Understood - I should have clarified, why would anyone of average (or above) intelligence be upset about this or any commercial?

I'm not complaining about any those things. I'm pointing out that you're complaining about one ad with a negative men's stereotype to a woman who is bombarded with ads telling them how imperfect they're supposed to feel. Not exactly the best way to make a point. I don't like the Gillette ad but I totally get women laughing off the outrage over it.

For anyone who actually cares on the "business sense" part of all of this, this article is pretty fascinating.

https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketi...ct-with-women/

In short, based on online conversations (like this one), conversations about "Gillette" have historically been about 56% by men and about 64% by people age 35+. However, if you look at conversations about "shaving," it's only 38% by men and 25% by people age 35+. In other words, they were severely missing out on the market of young women.

And that group has reacted very positively to the ad.

So basically, you're ok with female stereotypes that make many perfectly fine women believe they are less of a woman, but outraged at an ad that tells men they're not manly enough. And no, I'm not offended by these ads, just as I wasn't offended by a Gillette ad I disagreed with. I just understand the double standard.

Thats something I spoke about last week. I mentioned that Gillette would gladly sacrifice a few older customers if it meant drawing in a younger customer. It's just business 101. Razor category is a unique category that's all about customer lifetime value. Gillette sells you the first razor and you might have someone buying replacement blades for 50+ years. And they are under heavy attack with this young audience because shave clubs are stealing a ton of this market share. So they dont care about what older people like us think as much as we'd like to believe they do.

Why? Because Gillette's tagline for the men's grooming products is "The Best a Man Can Get." They aren't calling into question being masculine. They are calling into question being an asshole. So for this brand, its on point for them to ask - is this, the example of some asshole men, the best we can get? Or can we be better, and try to make the assholes better too? It doesn't make sense for them to ask if this is the best a woman can get, because a woman's best isn't their brand identity. They're "staying in their lane," if you will.

Now, what's Venus' tagline? I can't even think of one. More like a bunch of jingles or the 80s song, I'm your venus, I'm your fire, your desire. So why would the Venus brand ask a question of their female customers if they haven't historically been implanted as the image of how a woman should act?

Do you get the reason why this ad/message/question fits for Gillette, but maybe not another brand?

Do you get that Gillette sells shaving supplies to women as well as men? The best a man can get is only one side of their business.

Gillette
 

Exactly. It’s only one side of their business. That’s why they didn’t condemn behavior from the other side of their business. Because that side of the business never used the tag line, Venus...the best a woman can get.

The best a man can get IS Gillette. That’s their thing. They own it from a branding perspective. So now they see in society that not all men are really behaving the best way a man can get. So they are telling the best of us to continue leading by positive example and call out those who aren’t.

You asked why the ad was only about one side of their business, but pretty sure you answered that for yourself.

EDIT: and if you didn’t know, Venus is the female brand of Gillette razors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

so, it's about money.

always is....LMAO

I didn't say you were complaining about anything. I asked if responding to observations about how advertising directed at women induces shame with 'what are you complaining about' was a road you wanted to go down.

You assert that there is a rich history of female-directed advertising that induces shame. I'm not necessarily refuting that.

But first, do you, in turn, acknowledge that this shame inducement towards women is usually more subtle, more subjective, more a factor of reading into the subtext? That it's more that the advertising touts high standards without actually pointing out how you don't measure up, while the Gillette ad is more overt and direct?

And second, do you in turn acknowledge that there have been concerted efforts to criticize and counter these shame-inducing messages insofar as they 'hurt' women, largely without controversy or complaint.

Why then would criticism, however mild, of a more explicit message directed at men be excused by the 'shameful history' of implicit messages directed at women, if they were properly subject to criticism.

They did not have to use their slogan, they could have just come out and used the gender nuetral "people" or "individuals" or what have you and targeted everyone. Instead they focused on men. And not only focused on men, but made women look like nothing but our victims. Women not only got a free pass, but were made to look completely innocent as well. A company that caters to both sexes falsely singling out only one as the problem is an issue for me. If it is not for you, well, way to be "enlightened". I'll stick with being real.

Yep. Or at least they wouldn't be doing something that would COST them money.

People are more sensitive to it today so advertisers are generally very careful... recently. But there was nothing "implicit" about a lot of blatantly negative stereotyped ads about women reinforced by advertising over the decades. We didn't complain about it then. I'm not saying you don't have reason to complain about the Gillette ad. I'm just saying the argument that this hasn't happened in advertising to women is not only not true, it's really really not true.

YOU didn't complain, don't use WE without identifying your cohort.

There was and is plenty of complaining, about a lot more subtle and subjective messages than Gillette's. And the complainers were given latitude to complain, because complaining about their complaining was rude, unlike here.

I laid out what you would need to recognize in order to reach an accord. You deny, so we have to agree to disagree.

For decades we gave the latitude to complain about bombardment of blatantly unflattering stereotypes about women but literally did nothing about it until very recently. But now men have one ad knocking us down a peg too far so the deck is even. I think the ad was badly executed and caricature. But outraged... nah. Trying to use whataboutism to women who've seen far worse for decades just because it's gotten better recently? Yeah, not a winning battle.

And no, I don't think "just because women complain about smaller caricatures" justifies getting huffy about it. I think their complaints are an overreaction to a nonissue. I think complaints about this ad are more than justified, but huffing and puffing about unfair treatment and a war on masculinity. C'mon.

"Female stereotypes"? What, that beautiful, in shape, active, healthy, and confident women are going to get attention and be very sought after? If that's what you're referring to, who's really to blame, the men attracted to the women who do what it takes to be all those things, or the women who do it?

As for the commercial, for all the reasons that have become evident in the most recent posts, only an idiot would think the company who brought us hotties in latex with their company logo across their ass, in a few short years takes the content of that commercial seriously. It's so whorishly obviously that they're just looking to be talked about (remember, there is no bad press) that it's worth pointing out to people.

No, ads for decades blatantly played the women have no power anywhere whatsoever but the kitchen card. Using the "how would you feel if ads stereotyped women" card isnt quite the angle to take. And no, I don't think there's much difference preaching to women about what's lady-like anymore than preaching to a man what is masculine.

They have power in the kitchen?

WTF?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Go out there and slay the day 💪🏼 📸 Glitter + Lazers <a href="https://t.co/cIc0R3JfpR">pic.twitter.com/cIc0R3JfpR</a></p>&mdash; Gillette Venus (@GilletteVenus) <a href="https://twitter.com/GilletteVenus/status/1113565570354409473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

they went full SJW reerun, that's what the ****.

They'll be selling her plenty of razors to shave those legs!

They misspelled "Whale."

I think this belongs in the “Why did Clay 86 his girlfriend” thread.

I try to be accepting of all people. But.

Yikes.

Gah! Thread Tools/Ignore Thread/can't happen fast enough.

You ****ers should be ashamed of yourselves :cuss:

What Gillette sees:

https://media1.tenor.com/images/245d...itemid=5100055

Brooke Pryor got an advertising deal with Gillette. Neat for her.

ROFL

Perhaps Sharia Law has its upside?

FAX

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2xNLxtZR850" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It just doesn't stop. Now SI:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“Exposure to diversity is the catalyst that will ignite tolerance, acceptance and understanding.” — <a href="https://twitter.com/HunterMcGrady?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HunterMcGrady</a> <a href="https://t.co/3Zj0j2Xdld">https://t.co/3Zj0j2Xdld</a> <a href="https://t.co/bQCLi5lTCV">pic.twitter.com/bQCLi5lTCV</a></p>&mdash; Sports Illustrated Swimsuit (@SI_Swimsuit) <a href="https://twitter.com/SI_Swimsuit/status/1126162383980978177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Out of curiousity, does anyone know where Gillette's stock prices are at now as opposed to what they were before?