If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Blurry_Dreams]

these modern feminazis

i personally know a woman who thinks men-hitting-women is wrong but actually thinks it's completely okay for a girl to beat-the-fucking-hell out of her boyfriend

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't need Gillette to care about me personally (nor would I ever assume or ask a corporation to do so) I just need them to care about my money, and what it represents to pull that money. Not supporting companies for acting like cunts is a grand old tradition.

They do care about money. The ad wasn't some liberal marketing consultant's attempt to subtly inject virtue signaling into a major corporation's ad campaign. The ad itself was based on marketing research that suggests it would ultimately earn Gillette more money in the long run. The whole thing is financially driven.

https://morningconsult.com/form/gillette-commercial-survey/

Downward trends notwithstanding, Gillette is banking on this solidifying their name over the long run and earning them a solid purchasing base. They might experience some negative backlash right away, but stats suggest that it's minimal.

Not supporting them is fine, that's your prerogative. But don't try to pretend the ad wasn't about money. It was all about money. And I guarantee they have research to back up the decision to run the ad.

 

[rms]

Can't get the logic behind that ad taking consumers away from Harry's or Dollar Shave club. "I really hated overpriced razors until I saw that they think men should be more socially responsible"

 

[Einherjar86]

Whatever, it's their research. All they're looking for are stats about whether people say they would switch brands. Apparently a lot of users said they would, and very few said they wouldn't. Worst happens is there are no significant changes. If anything shifts, research indicates it would do so in their favor.

 

[rms]

Maybe you should read more bullshit into 2200 person razor survey. And that business research is some intelligent worthwhile thing. Budweiser already abandoned their "real men don't drink craft beer " crap

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe you should read more bullshit into 2200 person razor survey. And that business research is some intelligent worthwhile thing. Budweiser already abandoned their "real men don't drink craft beer " crap

If R&A wasn't intelligent and worthwhile, companies wouldn't do it. And if they hired bullshit artists who didn't know what they're doing and send sales down the toilet, then they'll fire those bullshit artists and hire ones who're good at what they do.

I'm curious how you think major corporations arrive at decisions to make/sell any product without research. It's almost as though you think a few execs chatting in a room somewhere just go "Yeah, I think people would like that!"

But then, I suppose that is easier to imagine than actually trying to conceive how companies conduct market research...

 

[Dak]

I'm curious as to the research sample. I've seen mostly women positively commenting about it, and dudes who look like they don't grow much facial hair. What if it was really designed to sell more Venus razors? Well played Gillette.

 

[CiG]

this is literally what a commercial's director does
the company picks a specific demographic and then they make a commercial that will get that specific demographic to purchase that product
the more pissed off you got about a commercial, the more money they made from some demographic that disagrees with your views

Somehow I highly doubt it was a good business move. Likely they will distance themselves from such rhetoric at some point in the near future.

They do care about money. The ad wasn't some liberal marketing consultant's attempt to subtly inject virtue signaling into a major corporation's ad campaign. The ad itself was based on marketing research that suggests it would ultimately earn Gillette more money in the long run. The whole thing is financially driven.

https://morningconsult.com/form/gillette-commercial-survey/

Downward trends notwithstanding, Gillette is banking on this solidifying their name over the long run and earning them a solid purchasing base. They might experience some negative backlash right away, but stats suggest that it's minimal.

Not supporting them is fine, that's your prerogative. But don't try to pretend the ad wasn't about money. It was all about money. And I guarantee they have research to back up the decision to run the ad.

I never once said or suggested that they don't care about money, I was responding to you saying Gillette don't care about us personally, which was an idiotic thing to say because nobody thinks they care about us, or at least I would never think that. I said I only need them to care about my money as a direct rebuttal to your implication of them caring being my expectation.

I don't buy that this was a good financial move. Not that I truly believe the average person is willing to go without a product they like to stand by a principle, if they did Nike wouldn't still be in business.

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

I never once said or suggested that they don't care about money, I was responding to you saying Gillette don't care about us personally, which was an idiotic thing to say because nobody thinks they care about us, or at least I would never think that. I said I only need them to care about my money as a direct rebuttal to your implication of them caring being my expectation.

The vibe I got from most people's comments was that they made a decision in the interests of social justice or some bullshit like that. They're not interested in social justice or virtue signaling or whatever beyond its value as a marketing strategy. Sorry if I misread what people were saying.

 

[CiG]

Virtue-signalling in and of itself has nothing to do with any kind of real justice. Virtue-signalling is when a conservative talks about family values and then goes and has sex with a male hooker in a motel, or when left-wingers buy Nike in support of Kaepernick in the pursuit of social justice. Corporations are and always will be the kings of virtue-signalling, money is of paramount importance but public image is penultimate.

TL;DR all virtue-signalling is a kind of market strategy.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Virtue-signalling is when a conservative talks about family values and then goes and has sex with a male hooker in a motel

No, that's just hypocrisy. Virtue-signalling is simply engaging in actions for the intention of being perceived as a good person. Conservative virtue-signalling would be more like putting "I support the troops" bumper stickers on your car.

 

[CiG]

I accept that, though I would add that virtue-signalling is a kind of hypocrisy to begin with.

 

[Einherjar86]

Good points, although I'd add that all advertising is virtue-signaling on some level.

Since the 1980s or so, most advertising ceased being primarily about products and became primarily about brand names. When you buy a Dodge truck, you're not simply buying a truck; you're buying a Dodge. When you buy a Gillette razor, you're not just buying a razor; you're buying a Gillette. To that extent, you're buying into the virtues and values that you associate with a particular brand.

 

[Dak]

Virtue signaling is not a new phenomena by any stretch.

Matthew 6 New International Version (NIV)

6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

Here are examples of signaling. Modern virtue signaling is basically verse five. Low cost in material wealth.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

They do care about money. The ad itself was based on marketing research that suggests it would ultimately earn Gillette more money in the long run. The whole thing is financially driven.
Downward trends notwithstanding, Gillette is banking on this solidifying their name over the long run and earning them a solid purchasing base. They might experience some negative backlash right away, but stats suggest that it's minimal.
But don't try to pretend the ad wasn't about money. It was all about money. And I guarantee they have research to back up the decision to run the ad.

this is what i was trying to say Ein is just better at being articulate here

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Good points, although I'd add that all advertising is virtue-signaling on some level.

Since the 1980s or so, most advertising ceased being primarily about products and became primarily about brand names. When you buy a Dodge truck, you're not simply buying a truck; you're buying a Dodge. When you buy a Gillette razor, you're not just buying a razor; you're buying a Gillette. To that extent, you're buying into the virtues and values that you associate with a particular brand.

If a person buys a Dodge because they think it increases the quality of their driving experience based, no. If they buy a Dodge because they think it increases their social value, then yes. Not that I deny that the latter happens; all of my conservative family members exclusively buy American-brand cars because they want to carry the image of "buying American" (just forget that they're assembled in Mexico). A liberal San Franciscan great-uncle of mine, on the other hand, drives a Prius, which probably makes him feel that he's showing others that he cares about the environment.

 

[rms]

If R&A wasn't intelligent and worthwhile, companies wouldn't do it. And if they hired bullshit artists who didn't know what they're doing and send sales down the toilet, then they'll fire those bullshit artists and hire ones who're good at what they do.

I'm curious how you think major corporations arrive at decisions to make/sell any product without research. It's almost as though you think a few execs chatting in a room somewhere just go "Yeah, I think people would like that!"

But then, I suppose that is easier to imagine than actually trying to conceive how companies conduct market research...

If you acknowledge that they hire bad PR directors then that's already going against your last point, that market branding is some heavily researched area that almost removes human input from the decision.

There's a pretty big difference between creating a product and reinventing how to sell an already existing product. Gillette changed nothing with their razors, there is nothing admirable or respectable about this kind of advertising.

I think you vastly overestimate what companies do to get products noticed. You can watch any episode of Shark Tank and hear how worrisome they all are about bringing new products into their market.

And then you can think about what new products make it in. Dollar shave club just places ads anywhere men congregate , are they genuises for this? Did they have to hire a team to tell them to do this?

 

[Einherjar86]

If a person buys a Dodge because they think it increases the quality of their driving experience based, no. If they buy a Dodge because they think it increases their social value, then yes. Not that I deny that the latter happens; all of my conservative family members exclusively buy American-brand cars because they want to carry the image of "buying American" (just forget that they're assembled in Mexico). A liberal San Franciscan great-uncle of mine, on the other hand, drives a Prius, which probably makes him feel that he's showing others that he cares about the environment.

Yeah, well said--I was a bit too hasty with what I said, and conflated two different claims.

I still stand by that, since the 1980s, most or all advertising is about brand names and/or values and not the actual product. But that doesn't mean that all people buying a product are doing so for the name. Someone buying a used Dodge might be doing so because they just need personal transportation.

If you acknowledge that they hire bad PR directors then that's already going against your last point, that market branding is some heavily researched area that almost removes human input from the decision.

There's a pretty big difference between creating a product and reinventing how to sell an already existing product. Gillette changed nothing with their razors, there is nothing admirable or respectable about this kind of advertising.

I think you vastly overestimate what companies do to get products noticed. You can watch any episode of Shark Tank and hear how worrisome they all are about bringing new products into their market.

And then you can think about what new products make it in. Dollar shave club just places ads anywhere men congregate , are they genuises for this? Did they have to hire a team to tell them to do this?

Doing bad marketing research doesn't mean doing no marketing research.

Respectability isn't their concern.

I think you underestimate what companies do. The fact that the sharks on shark tank are worried about bringing in new products should clue you in to the fact that it means they need to invest in marketing research in order to do so.

And yes, Dollar Shave Club invests in marketing research.

 

[Satanstoenail]

lol’d


https://m.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/bloke-who-watched-the-gillette-ad-holds-the-lift/