Gillette’s wonderfully woke new commercial

[realibrad]

Well, you're talking about Apple users, so there's not much that can be done to help. Apple fans just love giving Apple their money.

Yep. The reason for that is how it makes them feel. They feel like they are a better person than average when they buy an Apple product. Apple has positioned itself quite well in terms of branding. Thus, when Apple does something, many of their customers accept it as good because to do otherwise would diminish the benefit of them being an Apple customer.

So, if Apple were to start promoting ideas about morality, would you feel comfortable given how many accept Apple's claims without question? Personally it would make me worried.

 

[Moonbeam]

I can appreciate concerns about corporate cynicism, but at the same time, corporations are going to try to market their products however they can. So I would prefer they did so with a positive moral message rather than not.

Hehe, I think it was the Christian moral ethic of honesty that drove the scientific revolution that destroyed irrational miracle based faith and my own loss of faith for that matter. I wonder if it won't be the profound truth in empathy based ethics and a concern for community that destroys the lust for worldly things. But then, maybe there's a huge market that can be built of the real moral good. I might be willing to part with much to have on Earth as it is in Heaven.

 

[realibrad]

Hehe, I think it was the Christian moral ethic of honesty that drove the scientific revolution that destroyed irrational miracle based faith and my own loss of faith for that matter. I wonder if it won't be the profound truth in empathy based ethics and a concern for community that destroys the lust for worldly things. But then, maybe there's a huge market that can be built of the real moral good. I might be willing to part with much to have on Earth as it is in Heaven.

The image I get is of Star Trek.

 

[cytg111]

Omfg .. on the subject of morality police... are you guys f* joking? Really? JC.

 

[Jaskalas]

You are under the assumption that the campaign was to try and do good, when the reality is that it was a pay to play on emotions to make more money. The company does not care about you, or society at large.

True, but does it matter? And, how?

 

[realibrad]

True, but does it matter? And, how?

As Moonie started down, it has to do with the companies chasing fads. That is usually going to be fine, but, there in a bad incentive there. If and when there is a time for companies to promote something harmful to society, but, good for business they will do it. Keeping in mind that companies are motivated by profit helps us from being hurt by that incentive.

Looking to companies to drive social change is very risky.

 

[Amused]

As Moonie started down, it has to do with the companies chasing fads. That is usually going to be fine, but, there in a bad incentive there. If and when there is a time for companies to promote something harmful to society, but, good for business they will do it. Keeping in mind that companies are motivated by profit helps us from being hurt by that incentive.

Looking to companies to drive social change is very risky.

And here we are. Undermining what is for all intents and purposes a flawlessly good message because it's associated with profit and "beware they may not always be good."

Facts:
1. This message is a sorely needed one and overall good.
2. It appears to me the only people trying to undermine it are ones who have a history of trying to undermine anything that goes against white xian male dominance.
3. Knowing that if they address the message itself they'll look like assholes defending asshole behavior, they'll attempt to appeal to the left's perceived hatred of capitalism and profits to undermine it. ANYTHING to not just say, "hey, that's a good message society needs to hear, regardless of the motive."

And let us not forget this thread was started by a broflake who cried about a company "virtue signalling" because they called assholes assholes for being assholes.

 

[realibrad]

And here we are. Undermining what is for all intents and purposes a flawlessly good message because it's associated with profit and "beware they may not always be good."

Facts:
1. This message is a sorely needed one and overall good.
2. It appears to me the only people trying to undermine it are ones who have a history of trying to undermine anything that goes against white xian male dominance.
3. Knowing that if they address the message itself they'll look like assholes defending asshole behavior, they'll attempt to appeal to the left's perceived hatred of capitalism and profits to undermine it. ANYTHING to not just say, "hey, that's a good message society needs to hear, regardless of the motive."

That is not what is happening. That is what you are trying to make it into, because, you have no defense for what we are actually saying. We have clearly said that promoting anit-sexism is good. Thinking the company is Noble for doing this is stupid. The company is trying to make money. The company is not trying to help.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can appreciate concerns about corporate cynicism, but at the same time, corporations are going to try to market their products however they can. So I would prefer they did so with a positive moral message rather than not.

Yeh, but how does this commercial work on a guy for whom Trump is the epitome of manliness?

That's rhetorical, of course, given that UC gave the answer in the OP...

 

[cytg111]

That is not what is happening. That is what you are trying to make it into, because, you have no defense for what we are actually saying. We have clearly said that promoting anit-sexism is good. Thinking the company is Noble for doing this is stupid. The company is trying to make money. The company is not trying to help.

Doest it matter?
If we applaud the company for its "good morals", give it positive PR on that vector, what will happen? In a game of incomplete information, is this a winning or loosing move relative to where we want to take society? - whatever 'objective' motivations the company may have in this context matters not. At all.

 

[Amused]

That is not what is happening. That is what you are trying to make it into, because, you have no defense for what we are actually saying. We have clearly said that promoting anit-sexism is good. Thinking the company is Noble for doing this is stupid. The company is trying to make money. The company is not trying to help.

I never said the company was noble for it. Point out where I have said that?

I said I don't give a rat's ass about their motivation. Only that the message is a good one. And that anyone crying about "virtue signalling" is an asshole trying to defend assholes being called out for being assholes.

 

[realibrad]

Doest it matter?
If we applaud the company for its "good morals", give it positive PR on that vector, what will happen? In a game of incomplete information, is this a winning or loosing move relative to where we want to take society? - whatever 'objective' motivations the company may have in this context matters not. At all.

The response for why it matters is literally just a few posts ahead of yours. Look at post 81.

 

[realibrad]

I never said the company was noble for it. Point out where I have said that?

I said I don't give a rat's ass about their motivation. Only that the message is a good one. And that anyone crying about "virtue signalling" is an asshole trying to defend assholes being called out for being assholes.

Its implied by what you have said.

If the company is trying to, in your words "end toxic masculinity" at the cost of their profits, then that would be the company putting morals ahead of their self interest. That is by definition noble.

That is, however, not what the company was doing. The company did not run this campaign thinking it would hurt them. They did it thinking it would help them.

I'm not defending anything other than my position, which is that what the company did was not to help society at their expense. What the company did was to try and align themselves and their brand with an idea they thought would help sell more of their product.

 

[cytg111]

The response for why it matters is literally just a few posts ahead of yours. Look at post 81.

#81 makes no sense to me at all. How do you think a democracy driven capatalistic society works? You got any idea how much diabetis you get from a coke? Now cause Gilette we are offended? Reeeeeally?

 

[realibrad]

#81 makes no sense to me at all. How do you think a democracy driven capatalistic society works? You got any idea how much diabetis you get from a coke? Now cause Gilette we are offended? Reeeeeally?

So, because I have not brought up other examples in this thread, it makes what I said nonsensical and invalid?

What does capitalism and democracy have to do with believing a company is profit driven and not noble?

 

[Jhhnn]

You are under the assumption that the campaign was to try and do good, when the reality is that it was a pay to play on emotions to make more money. The company does not care about you, or society at large.

So what? If the message is positive, the reasons for the messenger bringing it to us don't really matter.

It's not like the "Buy more guns to protect yourself" message of fear from the NRA.

 

[Amused]

So what? If the message is positive, the reasons for the messenger bringing it to us don't really matter.

It's not like the "Buy more guns to protect yourself" message of fear from the NRA.

He can't tear the message down on substance, for that would make it appear he supports assholes being assholes. Therefore he has to undermine it some other way.

It's transparent as glass.

 

[realibrad]

So what? If the message is positive, the reasons for the messenger bringing it to us don't really matter.

It's not like the "Buy more guns to protect yourself" message of fear from the NRA.

Again, see post 81.

 

[realibrad]

He can't tear the message down on substance, for that would make it appear he supports assholes being assholes. Therefore he has to undermine it some other way.

It's transparent as glass.

You keep trying to push that. Show me where I commented on the substance of the message and not the motive that you attributed.

 

[Jhhnn]

You keep trying to push that. Show me where I commented on the substance of the message and not the motive that you attributed.

Ignore the message to smear the messenger in innuendo. It's as if encouraging us to treat each other better isn't really a good thing.

We need more of that, not less, so I really don't care about the motivations of anybody promoting it.

 

[realibrad]

Ignore the message to smear the messenger in innuendo. It's as if encouraging us to treat each other better isn't really a good thing.

We need more of that, not less, so I really don't care about the motivations of anybody promoting it.

Are you able to understand what is going on her Jhhnn? I'm not talking about the message. I'm talking about the misguided conception that the company did it for the betterment of society at the cost of themselves.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you able to understand what is going on her Jhhnn? I'm not talking about the message. I'm talking about the misguided conception that the company did it for the betterment of society at the cost of themselves.

Yeh, you're diverting away from the message, no doubt. And if Gillette has come to the conclusion that toxic masculinity doesn't sell the way it once did, I hope they're on to something. I mean, that's what Trumpism is all about, isn't it- dick waving fools?

 

[brycejones]

Its obvious from the posts the quibbler has shown up. Why bother guys, the goal posts always move.

 

[realibrad]

Yeh, you're diverting away from the message, no doubt. And if Gillette has come to the conclusion that toxic masculinity doesn't sell the way it once did, I hope they're on to something. I mean, that's what Trumpism is all about, isn't it- dick waving fools?

It appears you have been keeping up with literally nothing in this thread. Not uncommon for you to do though.

Start on this post.

From the start, and up until now, it has been about the motivations behind the campaign. P&G hired an agency to create a campaign. That joint effort was to create a message to promote their brand, which ultimately was to maintain and or increase sales. Amused was trying to argue that their goal was not sales, but, an attempt to improve society.

 

[Jhhnn]

It appears you have been keeping up with literally nothing in this thread. Not uncommon for you to do though.

Start on this post.

From the start, and up until now, it has been about the motivations behind the campaign. P&G hired an agency to create a campaign. That joint effort was to create a message to promote their brand, which ultimately was to maintain and or increase sales. Amused was trying to argue that their goal was not sales, but, an attempt to improve society.

Or maybe it's just Gillette's version of a public service announcement & ad campaign rolled into one. They could have created a non-profit to do much the same thing but it wouldn't get nearly the air time.

How anybody not a devotee of toxic masculinity could take offense at it is baffling. Which is what our apparently insecure OP did right from the start.

If Gillette does the right thing for all the wrong reasons, it's still the right thing.