Gillette

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The majority of viewers is based on your read on the reactions. They don't care about general population. They care about their target audience. If I had to guess, they're targeting millennials and younger because they are prime targets in the razor category. Older customers are not. Many are brand loyal by now and despite their outrage, not many will switch to a razor they hate to protest an ad. Not the approach I take because they may have alienated many of their best customers. But basically, if this does really well with younger men they won't give two shits about how many older customers they lose.

Who uses YouTube the most? The exact audience they want to target.

It has 350,000 down votes and only 1/3 as many likes. How could anybody spin that as a win?

Fishpicker has a point - if they're targeting women, at least this isn't as bad a sign. But if they're targeting millennials males, this is bad. There's no way to say otherwise.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Who uses YouTube the most? The exact audience they want to target.

It has 350,000 down votes and only 1/3 as many likes. How could anybody spin that as a win?

Fishpicker has a point - if they're targeting women, at least this isn't as bad a sign. But if they're targeting millennials males, this is bad. There's no way to say otherwise.

I don't think up or downvoting is necessarily an indicator that millennials reject the ad. Even if adults use YouTube less, every single person triggered by the as is going to go to the ad and vote. So I'd be careful with that kind of metric. Again, I personally didn't like the ad and could easily see if younger folks thought it was too pc... But that is only what I see. The true marker is how Gillette carries this campaign future forward. If they insist on sticking with it with minimal tweaks they're seeing something we're not.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I don't think up or downvoting is necessarily an indicator that millennials reject the ad. Even if adults use YouTube less, every single person triggered by the as is going to go to the ad and vote. So I'd be careful with that kind of metric. Again, I personally didn't like the ad and could easily see if younger folks thought it was too pc... But that is only what I see. The true marker is how Gillette carries this campaign future forward. If they insist on sticking with it with minimal tweaks they're seeing something we're not.

"Triggering" affects both sides, though. That's why you saw the thing with 100K down votes and 10K likes at one point - because the "against" crowd was showing up to down vote it.

It evened out over time yesterday because once the "for" crowd caught wind of what the "against" crowd was doing, they did the same thing.

In essence, social media "triggering" or backlash or whatever you want to call it, usually serves to only inflate total vote counts, not just one side or the other. But I'm speaking in generalities of course.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

"Triggering" affects both sides, though. That's why you saw the thing with 100K down votes and 10K likes at one point - because the "against" crowd was showing up to down vote it.

It evened out over time yesterday because once the "for" crowd caught wind of what the "against" crowd was doing, they did the same thing.

In essence, social media "triggering" or backlash or whatever you want to call it, usually serves to only inflate total vote counts, not just one side or the other. But I'm speaking in generalities of course.

Im just talking about how YouTube being a younger media doesn't mean the vote results are representative of a younger audience. Lots of older adults undoubtedly voted even when they usually don't vote on videos.

And these votes are heavily biased to triggered reactions. Those who despised it and those who loved it. Especially for millennials, I'm sure there are tons who have a reaction, but aren't really triggered either way. That's a really significant part of the target audience.

Again...i tend to agree millennials probably found the ad too patronizing. But I'd just be careful relying on our interpretation of public reaction. I'd pay a lot more attention to how Gillette responds.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Im just talking about how YouTube being a younger media doesn't mean the vote results are representative of a younger audience. Lots of older adults undoubtedly voted even when they usually don't vote on videos.

And these votes are heavily biased to triggered reactions. Those who despised it and those who loved it. Especially for millennials, I'm sure there are tons who have a reaction, but aren't really triggered either way.

Again...i tend to agree millennials probably found the ad too patronizing. But I'd just be careful relying on our interpretation of public reaction. I'd pay a lot more attention to how Gillette responds.

Okay, I get that.

Then again, if your argument is that most people just weren't moved enough to click thumbs up or thumbs down, how are they going to be moved enough to buy Gillette over some other brand?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Okay, I get that.

Then again, if your argument is that most people just weren't moved enough to click thumbs up or thumbs down, how are they going to be moved enough to buy Gillette over some other brand?

Branding doesn't have to lead to immediate action.

If a young person didn't have a visceral reaction, chances are this ad isn't going to sway them to not buy. A slight positive impression could be enough to consider buying. But the biggest impact will be the brand activity. They see Gillette's name all over the place. The question is if that's enough to balance any negative reaction that leads to lost sales. It's polarizing of an ad enough to fairly ask that question.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Branding doesn't have to lead to immediate action.

If a young person didn't have a visceral reaction, chances are this ad isn't going to sway them to not buy. A slight positive impression could be enough to consider buying. But the biggest impact will be the brand activity. They see Gillette's name all over the place. The question is if that's enough to balance any negative reaction that leads to lost sales. It's polarizing of an ad enough to fairly ask that question.

So basically the old adage that the only bad press is no press? I don't know about that.

But it will sure be interesting to see what happens in the coming months.

[Fishpicker]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

"Triggering" affects both sides, though. That's why you saw the thing with 100K down votes and 10K likes at one point - because the "against" crowd was showing up to down vote it.

It evened out over time yesterday because once the "for" crowd caught wind of what the "against" crowd was doing, they did the same thing.

In essence, social media "triggering" or backlash or whatever you want to call it, usually serves to only inflate total vote counts, not just one side or the other. But I'm speaking in generalities of course.

this is true.

consider the following


this vid used to have a down-skewed ratio. now it has 7k up vs 5k down.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by Fishpicker

this is true.

consider the following


this vid used to have a down-skewed ratio. now it has 7k up vs 5k down.

Or they just change the numbers, it is youtube.