Right now, the socialwebz is chattering about the Gilette commercial where they talk about toxic masculinity.
It's a great message. It's a well produced commercial. This is not about that.
I just feel like I'm taking crazy pills sometimes. Remember the Pepsi commercial where Kylie Jenner suddenly gets WOKE and ends racism by giving a cop a pepsi (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/05/522750764/after-uproar-pepsi-halts-rollout-of-controversial-protest-themed-ad)?
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=https://d1i4t8bqe7zgj6.cloudfront.net/04-05-2017/t_1491408159141_name_jenner_2.gif&op=noop)
The whole thing was so cheap and awkward. I actually had a little faith in humanity restored because people rejected the crass attempt to cash in on a social movement. "Why can't we all just get along and enjoy a Pepsi together"
But we forgot about that -- now brands are our moral guardians again.
Just so we're on the same page here:
Bigass companies like Proctor & Gamble have legions of marketers who spend all day dreaming up ways to get regular people to talk about their brand. The easiest way to do it is to associate the brand with a topic people are talking about already. If they pick a controversial topic, they do a fuckload of research to make sure they're on the right side of the wave. At least, with their target audience. Brands aren't going to move the needle, they usually choose the safe side, to minimize blowback. (although the blowback can serve them -- when Chick-Fil-A took a stand against The Gays, people boycotted them, but then there was Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy#Chick-fil-A_Appreciation_Day).. The company grew by 12% as a result of the controversy)
So, I am not generous with credit when ads sell us feel-good pro-social moral messages. They're not Martin Luther King, they're more like the guy who shows up at the million man march selling T-Shirts.
But all that being said, it's complicated... Because toxic masculinity is an important topic, #MeToo is an important topic, and getting some fresh air around masculinity is a net benefit. We need to be having these talks in cyberspace. We need shitheads to accidentally see a mirror and go "oh fffffuck".
In my darkest and most cynical moments, I question whether social progress is possible without involving Consumer Identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_identity). Maybe progress is only possible when it can be sold -- and integrated into your wardrobe.
(the research shows, btw, that gender-role based advertising is super effective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_identity#Consumer_gender))
Because ultimatley, what moves the needle is "influencers" (like Kylie Jenner for some fucking reason) or Taylor Swift (whose brief dip into political awareness spiked voter registration (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/entertainment/taylor-swift-voter-registration/index.html)). And if we're all just plugged into the knee-jerk machine anyway, then we might as well get something good out of it... so Thanks, Gilette, for getting people talking about your brand (in the context of toxic masculinity). Because it IS time to have a conversation about toxic masculinity (brought to you by Gilette).
Let's look back at the early Women's Lib movement... The FIRST American PR campaign was about getting more women to smoke--this was accomplished by targeting activist feminists. They tried to get women to call cigarettes "Torches of Freedom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom)", and create a symbolic link between smoking and independence. They paid women to smoke cigarettes while marching in parades.
In my darkest and most cynical moments, I thank the cigarette industry for women's lib.
Like, Nike taking Colin Kaepernick's side was good.
But in the next few days, I saw so many posts where people were praising Nike, or talking about buying new shoes in support of it
Isn't that kinda weird??
It's hard to talk about this without coming off like a big d-bag who is shitting on social progress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGn55BRyDSk
Yeah, it's not so much a company embracing political activism or a moral stance as the company, murdering, skinning and impersonating the moral stance to get into your house.
It just means they have reached peak amorality and are willing to chameleon themselves to whatever they think they should be doing to better sell you their shit.
I can say from experience that large corporations spend a great deal of money trying to predict how the winds are changing, so they can hang their product on it.
But, at least in this case, who cares? A positive message was delivered in a very effective way. The fact that Gillette will do well by doing right doesn't burn my ass even a little bit.
Oh, I wanted to drop this mini-documentary in here, courtesy of Cainad: Cultivated Identity, with Peter Coffin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Lf1GcG5M4)
Discusses the modern intersection between commerce and identity
and why people think that buying a plastic razor is a form of activism
One thing I am considering...
There's research that shows people operate as if they have a moral "balance sheet" -- which works kinda like a diet - you exercise, so then you feel okay about eating a cupcake. If you do something good, it makes up for something bad.
One experiment gave participants a sum of money, and then asked them if they'd like to donate any of that money to a charity. Then, they gave people a test, with a visible opportunity to cheat on that test. They found that people who gave $$ to charity had a higher level of cheating.
It's like they thought "I did something good! So I can get away with something bad right now..."
Over Christmas, we were talking about charity, and a friend of the family mentioned that she only buys Toms shoes. (because for each pair of shoes purchased, Toms 'donates a pair to a third world country') It's a curious thing to bring up in the context of charity, it makes me think that she views her shoe purchase as charitable. And I wonder--if she didn't have Toms to make her feel good, would she be more likely to actually donate to a real charity?
(hate to link to zizek, but he has some interesting thoughts here:
First as Tragedy, Then as Farce (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g))
I guess I'm wondering if people who go buy Gilette razors this week feel like they did something positive for the world. If so, there's a good chance that there isn't a net positive.
Some of the people in those 3rd world countries probably wish the shoes were edible. Having said that, she's doing slightly better than the people who change their Facebook avatar for a day and believe they are changing the world.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on January 16, 2019, 06:23:08 PM
I can say from experience that large corporations spend a great deal of money trying to predict how the winds are changing, so they can hang their product on it.
But, at least in this case, who cares? A positive message was delivered in a very effective way. The fact that Gillette will do well by doing right doesn't burn my ass even a little bit.
The message is good, but I could write "feed third world children" on my hemoroids but they would still be hemoroids.
Adverts treat us as walking ATMs and thats not going to change.
At this point I've invested money, and what's even worse TIME in this "discordianism" thing. I therefore conclude this is just a marketing ploy to transmutate hard to reach audiences into GDP. Just like punk.
Quote from: Faust on January 16, 2019, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on January 16, 2019, 06:23:08 PM
I can say from experience that large corporations spend a great deal of money trying to predict how the winds are changing, so they can hang their product on it.
But, at least in this case, who cares? A positive message was delivered in a very effective way. The fact that Gillette will do well by doing right doesn't burn my ass even a little bit.
The message is good, but I could write "feed third world children" on my hemoroids but they would still be hemoroids.
Adverts treat us as walking ATMs and thats not going to change.
Yeah, but in this case it's not fracking or selling shitty junk bonds, it's razors. Which I was gonna buy anyway.
Quote from: Con-troll on January 16, 2019, 11:19:40 PM
At this point I've invested money, and what's even worse TIME in this "discordianism" thing. I therefore conclude this is just a marketing ploy to transmutate hard to reach audiences into GDP. Just like punk.
This is how the world works.
Full disclosure: I'm really in favor of this just for the volcanic butthurt. :lulz:
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49948426_2039950639423940_2031916085338439680_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=0d0a4b6eabc88a741fd1153f1a21e81b&oe=5CC5D80D)
Well thats true. I resent advertising, but I love people being offended.
It's disingenuous, and it's profit driven, but it is still a positive act.
Advertising isn't going away, and the most insidious part of it is that it will constantly alter itself to move past our defenses. Our responsibility is, as always, to view it skeptically, but when it's a good message like this one, the response should encourage more of the same. I don't think a Gillette commercial is going to make a bystander become active, but it can start to normalize the idea.
The other perspective for this trend is that activists are starting to recognize corporations as powerful tools in their fight. Wasn't it a Parkland survivor that got a bunch of sponsors pulled from Laura Ingraham's (sp?) show? We're recognizing that these entities have disproportionate power, but that they still do have to answer to consumers. I'm a little worried about the weaponization of such tactics, similar to how social media has become an influence peddling game for malevolent actors.
I'm actually going to buy some Gillette razors though, because the ones I bought to replace my last ones are chewing enormous chunks out of my face.
dollar shave club is a superior razor though. and the shave butter is amazing.
I watched the video, and was somewhat disappointed. Based on the intensity of the reactions, I figured it was going to be something a bit more accusatory, controversial, or "SJWish". But really, all that it said was, "hey guys, don't be jerks." It's hard for me to see anyone taking offense at that. And yet, the like:dislike ratio is almost 1:2 on youtube. :roll:
In any case, this is not going to affect my purchase of said company's products, positively or negatively. The video had nothing to say about their razors, and I am strongly disinclined to judge a company or their products by the actions of their marketing weasels.
I liked it. I felt like it was exactly like CNO said, basically asking men not to be jerks. The fact that is controversial is absurd, but if a few men decide not to be jerks because of it, that's good.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 17, 2019, 12:00:32 PM
It's disingenuous, and it's profit driven, but it is still a positive act.
Advertising isn't going away, and the most insidious part of it is that it will constantly alter itself to move past our defenses. Our responsibility is, as always, to view it skeptically, but when it's a good message like this one, the response should encourage more of the same. I don't think a Gillette commercial is going to make a bystander become active, but it can start to normalize the idea.
The other perspective for this trend is that activists are starting to recognize corporations as powerful tools in their fight. Wasn't it a Parkland survivor that got a bunch of sponsors pulled from Laura Ingraham's (sp?) show? We're recognizing that these entities have disproportionate power, but that they still do have to answer to consumers. I'm a little worried about the weaponization of such tactics, similar to how social media has become an influence peddling game for malevolent actors.
I'm actually going to buy some Gillette razors though, because the ones I bought to replace my last ones are chewing enormous chunks out of my face.
It has the positive aspect of legitimising and normalising good causes that's true and as long as they are doing that, that outlook should be supported. They are mercurial though and if the popular message of the day was something negative, they wear that mask too.
As long as the skepticism is there understanding the context that the good message goes hand in hand with an industry responsible for one of the most dangerous and cynical forms of social control. I don't trust them, and I don't think I ever will.
But that said I suppose if they can change on a whim we can too, as long as they support positive social change, that's ok, and when they don't then we dont need to support them any longer.
I view corporations more like a force of nature than conscious agents. If the hurricane blows the wildfire out then it's good. Doesn't mean I support hurricanes. Just fortunate that particular one came in handy. Me too got a publicity gift. Gillette will reap rewards. Anyone angered by this is angry at the wind for blowing in their favour.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 18, 2019, 11:45:42 AM
I view corporations more like a force of nature than conscious agents. If the hurricane blows the wildfire out then it's good. Doesn't mean I support hurricanes. Just fortunate that particular one came in handy. Me too got a publicity gift. Gillette will reap rewards. Anyone angered by this is angry at the wind for blowing in their favour.
Boom. Boom, I say.
It is all about getting people talk about the commercial. I can foresee there being a giant outrage when the first company rolls out an advertisement campaing where they seem to support racial segregation subtly while still keeping the deniability.