Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Gillette Commercial (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SHIZNITTTT
- Start date
Chaka
Footballguy
Wow, that's a rather harsh statement considering you don't know me.
Wanna do a post mortem on the financial impact of the Nike commercial with Kaepernick? Any idea if the YouTube comments tracked at 10 to 1 negative in that one too.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see mostly positive comments on YouTube, although it is not uncommon for vile racist and sexist comments to also be posted. I doubt if the high ratio of negative comments is at all typical. I did not follow the Kapernick/Nike ads, so it is irrelevant to me concerning this.
Pretty good article explaining the difference...
Why Nike’s Woke Ad Campaign Works and Gillette’s Doesn’t
"YouTube likes are running four-to-one against Gillette’s new ad; for comparison, the YouTube response to Nike’s controversial ad with Colin Kaepernick runs seven-to-one in favor"
"Nike’s message to customers is uplifting rather than accusatory. It doesn’t urge them to interrogate their roles in societal structures that may cause oppression, let alone the roles played by corporations like Nike. It skips past that, looking toward a solution rather than a problem. The Gillette campaign, by comparison, is a downer.
Of course, sometimes people deserve to be accused. But brands do not enjoy the corrective moral authority that might be enjoyed by a church or a family or a group of community elders to tell people that they are failing to live by the right values and should change their ways. The brand works for its customers, not the other way around."
Why Nike’s Woke Ad Campaign Works and Gillette’s Doesn’t
"YouTube likes are running four-to-one against Gillette’s new ad; for comparison, the YouTube response to Nike’s controversial ad with Colin Kaepernick runs seven-to-one in favor"
"Nike’s message to customers is uplifting rather than accusatory. It doesn’t urge them to interrogate their roles in societal structures that may cause oppression, let alone the roles played by corporations like Nike. It skips past that, looking toward a solution rather than a problem. The Gillette campaign, by comparison, is a downer.
Of course, sometimes people deserve to be accused. But brands do not enjoy the corrective moral authority that might be enjoyed by a church or a family or a group of community elders to tell people that they are failing to live by the right values and should change their ways. The brand works for its customers, not the other way around."
Chaka
Footballguy
I thought comments were running 10 to 1 negative? Are they improving with time?
Jon it's a little early to be making any sort of qualitative judgement regarding this campaign. Using financial impact as a proxy for success and failure is a limited measure but at least it is somewhat measurable. So let's give it until their Q1 numbers are released before calling it any type of success or failure.
You don't like the ad. I'm okay with it and want to see more corporations take social stances, even ones I disagree with because if we're going to treat them as citizens under the law then they need to start playing the part.
But the reality is that even though I am okay with the message, I doubt I will move on from Dollar Shave Club until Gillette's pricing gets more competitive. That fact, and the fact that I doubt I am alone in that, will make the Q1 numbers even more interesting.
It is early and maybe they will learn and do some major tweaks to their messaging and stop showing the negative condemnation parts and focus on the positive aspect of the message and treating people with dignity. The message needs to be uplifting and not a downer sermon highlighting so much negativity.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I've been down this generalization rabbit hole with you many times. Perhaps offer a specific example and we can talk otherwise i will assume it's just the typical
let's remember the message here is telling guys being ##### to women to knock it off. You've dumped your interpretation on top of the message and stated it as fact in terms of their motive.
DallasDMac
Footballguy
jhib
Footballguy
(preemptive imperfect analogy alert...)
I assume most teachers - even if they are the good ones - know some not-so-great teachers and/or had one or more back when they were in school. So picture a commercial by Right Guard where they spend the first half showing images/clips of teachers displaying all the poor teaching behaviors you might imagine. "We believe in America's teachers." Background news reports of the falling rankings of American students compared to their peers from other countries, plus maybe even a teacher-student sex scandal blurb. "Teachers need to hold other teachers accountable to do their job the right way." "Some already are"... clips of 'bad' teachers doing something 'bad' and 'good' teachers showing them a better way... "some is not enough." "Students learning from teachers today are tomorrow's teachers."
Anyway, I'm sure you get the gist (however clumsily I presented it). How does that ad play among teachers? Do you see the average teacher taking it as a positive message that they can all need to do better and pick each other up, or see it as a negative portrayal of teachers in general?
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
The generalization would be "all people"....that's not what was said. Glad to see you're here for the honest discussion though
Ilov80s
Footballguy
His generalization was actually far more offensive (insinuating people who, and yes all was implied, are offended are sexual predators vs what I said was leftist are politically correct) and far less accurate. But keep drinking whatever it is you are drinking.The generalization would be "all people"....that's not what was said. Glad to see you're here for the honest discussion though
Last edited by a moderator:
jhib
Footballguy
Ha. Touché.
Like I said before, the ad didn't bother me. But I can see why some might be upsetting or just annoying to some. I don't think it's completely unreasonable, but I do think it has something to do with the way you're wired.
As to my imaginary ad, I think more people would understand and agree with teachers upset by it. But that probably has more to do with the thought that teachers are under-respected as it is, almost to the point of being victims.
Chaka
Footballguy
That is not even close to what I implied. Hitting close to home covers a very wide range of behavior, not simply being a sexual predator.
The commercial touched on more topics than how society treats women.
Chaka
Footballguy
We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard in everything we do, regardless of how well (or poorly) we do it. Including how we respond to being reminded that we can be better than we are.
Sure bullying was also a secondary theme to sexual harassment/assault, but you do not leave open the door to being actually offended by how the message was given.
jhib
Footballguy
Agreed, but I would argue that most people respond better to, "You are mostly good, but can do better" than to, "You suck. Do better."
Which one you hear from an ad like this might have something to do with you, but it also has something to do with the decisions the advertisers made.
Chaka
Footballguy
Choosing to be offended by how is delivered is one thing but using that choice to be offended as cover to diminish or disregard the message is entirely different.
You didn't like the message, okay I get that. Ask Gillette to be better in the future. Now go out and be better yourself.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
True. Teachers is a much smaller group too- a lot more specific than half the human population so it might seem like more of a direct attack and teachers are certainly more sympathetic than men.
I think that is what most people are doing. Normal people don't disagree that women should not be harassed or children should not be bullied. That message gets lost in how negatively men are presented in the first half of the ad. Gillette should do better and for the millions they spent on developing the campaign, should have done better.
Chaka
Footballguy
The "Boys will be boys" mentality is a pervasive and insidious reality. Not nearly as many people as you seem to want to believe are aware that it is even something that should be scrutinized let alone acted upon.
Your attitude is effectively saying that since the commercial wasn't perfect (in your eyes) it should go away. This bizarre logic of letting the perfect interfere with the good is pervasive in many aspects of daily life at all levels of society. It's nothing more an excuse to inhibit change.
I get that you didn't like the delivery, (because you felt it was an unfair characterization of white men?) okay now be the better man, and deliver the message better
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Hey I’m one of the 8 billion people on Earth and I’m not just looking to be offended. Why do you have to lump me into this? Give me a damn break. I didn’t do anything wrong and yet I have to be the butt of some sarcastic joke.
The Commish
Footballguy
you read that into his words...it's what you wanted it to imply
All he said was it pisses off people where it hits close to home. That's straight up psychology 101...nothing earth shattering there and not even in the same universe as "all the men pissed off are pissed off because it hits too close to home". You keep digging though. This is exactly why I asked you for a specific example above as it was evident it was going to go exactly here. I notice you didn't offer up any specific situations for comparison. Wonder why.
Binky The Doormat
Footballguy
DallasDMac
Footballguy
I don't know commish, I have no dog in this fight, but I sort of took it the same way as the person you are arguing with. It sure seemed to insinuate that anyone upset was upset because it hit close to home. Just my opinion.
Chaka
Footballguy
It was me and stand by that part (okay maybe not every single person who chose to be offended). What I disagree with is @jon_mx suggesting that "home" only meant being a sexual predator. That is nowhere near what I was saying.
Home can simply mean recognizing that there have been situations in your life that you wish you had acted differently. Be it laughing, uncomfortably or otherwise, at an inherently racist joke instead of letting the joker know it wasn't funny. Standing by when someone was getting bullied. Not realizing until after the fact that you just committed date rape. Worse. Or anywhere in between. The commercial was pretty broad.
It seems like Jon's principal complaint is that it offered an unfair characterization of white men. I didn't read that myself but have no problem with him feeling that way. What I absolutely reject is using that choice to be offended as a reason to diminish or dismiss the overarching message of the commercial.
If you chose to be offended then choose to be better than Gillette...hell just be better than you were yesterday.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't question that it can be taken that way...interpreted that way, but arriving at that position takes more than the words on the page.
Like acknowledging the author admitted it was a generalization and people who read it took it as a generalization. I hyperbolized it a bit with only focusing on the sexual assault aspect of the ad, but it was a generalization, so just admit it and move on.
SHIZNITTTT
Footballguy
Gillette - "Thank you Covington Catholic for making our point."
Gillette - "How fast can you guys get down to Covington Rally?"
Gillette - "How fast can you guys get down to Covington Rally?"
Chaka
Footballguy
There are a lot of things that we can all admit.jon_mx said:
And you didn't hyperbolize "a bit" you immediately reacted as if the worst possible option was the only option. That's not a "Did I do that?" You did the same in viewing the commercial as a specific attack against white men and using that as an excuse to question the message entirely and paint white men as the true victim.
I don't want to be in a ifight with you and "win" an argument on the internet. What I do want to understand is your rationale in reaching some of your conclusions, which pretty clearly seem bizarre from my perspective.
The ad specifically target white males as the assaulter in every scene which depicted a male assaulting or harassing a woman and in both scenes where someone stepped in to stop the white male, it was a black male who did so. So yes, I think the PC society of today is racist as is this ad which has PC-liberalism splashed all over it. But that is a difference in perspective, you probably embrace the rules of PC, at least far more than I do, which protect certain groups to an extreme extent while leaving it open season on other groups to be admonished. I really don't care to be lectured by some company which pastes their names across the butts of hot women and then criticizes me for looking. There is just so much hypocrisy. I am for rules which treat people equally.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I can't believe people are complaining about this.
There has been a bogeyman of the savage black man unable to keep himself from sexually assaulting women for centuries. I have no problem if Gillette chose to avoid that stereotype entirely. And FWIW, the other implication seems to be challenging black men to stand up for what is right, which some coule interpret as meaning black men aren't currently doing that.
I think the way that they portray true masculinity is a great message. Real masculinity is standing up for and respecting women. Real masculinity is about diffusing fights and stepping up for the oppressed and vulnerable.
There has been a bogeyman of the savage black man unable to keep himself from sexually assaulting women for centuries. I have no problem if Gillette chose to avoid that stereotype entirely. And FWIW, the other implication seems to be challenging black men to stand up for what is right, which some coule interpret as meaning black men aren't currently doing that.
I think the way that they portray true masculinity is a great message. Real masculinity is standing up for and respecting women. Real masculinity is about diffusing fights and stepping up for the oppressed and vulnerable.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
This really should be in that forum that shall not be named.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'd ask you to read all that again if I thought it would do any good. You keep beating the #### out of your strawman. He's tried to tell you what he was saying and no matter how much you want it to be, his "generalization" will never be on the same level much less worse than your constant approach on this board.jon_mx said:
You spoke out against generalizations then you immediately liked one a few posts later. Own it.
The Commish
Footballguy
Please use quotes here if you must insist on dying on this hill. His "generalization" and yours being in the same stratosphere is comical. It's like arguing that a Ferrari and a pinto are the same thing since they are both "cars"
This is where we're at in terms of arguments around here. It's cool though. You win. I will forever bear the burden of having "lost" this "debate" Congrats
The good news is, i did learn more about you and how you think. So there's that.
Chaka
Footballguy
It comes across that you are working very hard at turning white men (presumably you) into the victim (they're not and you're not) and using that as an excuse to dismiss the message.
Nothing about the message to be better in any way relates to the notion of political correctness.
Chaka
Footballguy
What I want is for all people to be treated with the same dignity and respect. If it is not OK to show Hispanics or African-Americans sexually harassing women and lecturing them to behave better, don't do it to white males. Besides, Gillette has zero moral authority to be lecturing anyone.Chaka said:
Twisting it into victimhood is total BS. It is basic fairness of equal treatment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
I hate that narrative. We all want that, there is nothing thoughtful or thought provoking about that notion. What it distills down to is an attempt to just conjure the reality without doing the work to actually make it happen. You're asking (demanding actually) that people who are still being marginalized to simply "get over it" before we actually address the issues that are causing them to be marginalized.
We all may want that but until there is no disparity in pay scale between white men and virtually everyone else (an oversimplification but... detailing everything is too much work right now) for doing the same work, we still have work to do.
You can say truly view the world through "color/gender blind" eyes but I, someone who you believe to be attuned to being PC (or whatever), am calling BS on that. If I*, sadly all to frequently, catch myself not walking that talk then I guarantee that if you did an honest assessment of yourself would find the same.
*I am likely not the progressive PC guy you want to believe I am (been a registered Republican my adult life and practiced it until 2016 because I finally accepted that the party has betrayed us). Suggesting that I am does not advance our conversation, it merely provides you cover to dismiss my arguments.
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
A watch company comes out with ad to support masculinity
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42408/watch-company-launches-response-gillette-toxic-frank-camp
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42408/watch-company-launches-response-gillette-toxic-frank-camp
Chaka
Footballguy
Another fine commercial although I don't see how it's a response to the Gillette commercial. And some of their stats are a little silly. 80% of homicide victims are men, really? What percentage of homicide perpetrators are men? Half of men without visitation rights still financially support their children. Great, what about the other half? Why don't they have visitation rights? etc.
Similar threads
