Rolling Maleness and Masculinity Discussion Thread

and im not saying the pivot didnt need to happen neither fwiw but im not sure that either the vacuum or the numerous advocated alternatives arent a major input into young male suicide figures (skewed heavily rural here also which is imo relevant)

i don't really feel like the pivot away from traditional masculinity has gotten up much steam when I'm back home in lanarkshire in the pub tbh.

"'Men are not the target audience of this ad.'

"That's really interesting. Do you think that this would be obvious to most people in marketing?"

I think so, particularly if they know about Procter & Gamble's strategy. (Part of my partner's job is knowing something about the personal care business world.) But there are some clues in the ad itself, especially the longform version -- showing the existing slogan in low-res video and then having an act of violence burst through it is a pretty on-the-nose way to do a re-branding, failing to show any men that male viewers would want to be until Terry Crews appears halfway in-- until that point, the men shown are pensive, victimized, or victimizers, while the women in the first half are shown being strong or tough or nurturing even in the face of victimization. Even importing Terry Crews from another P&G brand to Gillette says something. Corporations as large about P&G have to know about public attitudes to a million billion things, but they only ever want to change public attitudes on three types of things: attitudes toward political decisions that benefit their shareholders, attitudes toward their brands, and attitudes toward their products -- and they never ever ever want target markets to feel bad about themselves. This ad would make marketing sense if P&G no longer wants separate branding for Gillette and Gillette for Women.

i think any man watching that as would know right away it's not targeted to them, it's feminist porn. it even has a superhero foiling an in progress sexual assault (the brave man who stops his friend from looking at SMH attractive passerby). 10/10

*an, not SMH

I am not qualified to comment on the larger politics here, but I will say that I hate shaving AND I hate having a beard about equally. It is a continual cycle of annoyance. I probably deserve it.

i have that thing where if i have a beard i look like the daguerreotype of a civil war casualty and if i'm clean-shaven i look like a slightly weathered child, but if i have a moderately unshaven look it works. it's a delicate balance.

I think i’m always going to keep the scruff. I did clean shaven a few weeks ago and i had to admit it didn’t look like me.

I've been totally clean-shaven twice in the last 36 years and couldn't get that beard back fast enough.

the worst thing about the gillette ad is the men on twitter vigorously congratulating themselves for not being one of the men on twitter who's offended by the gillette ad

My mom just e-mailed this to me noting how “I have my work cut out for me as a father” lol

"'Men are not the target audience of this ad.'

"That's really interesting. Do you think that this would be obvious to most people in marketing?"

I think so, particularly if they know about Procter & Gamble's strategy. (Part of my partner's job is knowing something about the personal care business world.) But there are some clues in the ad itself, especially the longform version -- showing the existing slogan in low-res video and then having an act of violence burst through it is a pretty on-the-nose way to do a re-branding, failing to show any men that male viewers would want to be until Terry Crews appears halfway in-- until that point, the men shown are pensive, victimized, or victimizers, while the women in the first half are shown being strong or tough or nurturing even in the face of victimization. Even importing Terry Crews from another P&G brand to Gillette says something. Corporations as large about P&G have to know about public attitudes to a million billion things, but they only ever want to change public attitudes on three types of things: attitudes toward political decisions that benefit their shareholders, attitudes toward their brands, and attitudes toward their products -- and they never ever ever want target markets to feel bad about themselves. This ad would make marketing sense if P&G no longer wants separate branding for Gillette and Gillette for Women.

― Three Word Username, Monday, January 14, 2019 6:23 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Any source for this other than inside info? It's interesting but it would be nice to have a (non-breitbart) article or something like that making that case

is there a brietbart article making the case? it does seem likely that insulting your customers or inveighing against them to be less shitty are not great strategies if your intention is to sell them a product. what's the alternative? that they're a corporation moved by social responsibility and they're willing to alienate some of their customers in order to "make a difference"?

https://goat.com.au/metoo/gillettes-anti-toxic-masculinity-ad-is-so-sharp-that-of-course-its-cut-toxic-men-deep?fbclid=IwAR1OggiwUqIHfojyOxwyxKLbFk4kAoegEMZKLMICAx3vQTTgZG9lCLgGbvI

Something a fb friend posted from Au.

ppl who are normally skeptical of corporate motivations esp when it comes to promotion and advertising (not saying this is anyone in particular, just as a general statement) probably shouldn't suspend that skepticism just bc they like the message

facial hair: uncomfortable, mild dysphoria. shaving: tedious, nick this same damn mole on my face 2/3 of the time. laser: intimidating, unknown.

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Monday, January 14, 2019 3:07 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

once again silby and i are on the same page

Meanwhile, one brave advertiser senses an opportunity:

Ball Deodorant: Sometimes the best inventions are the most obvious! You put deodorant under your arms, doesn't it make sense to put it on down there? Your balls will thank you → https://t.co/JX5CsVG8jG pic.twitter.com/RvyhpLXgjl

— Manscaped (@manscaped) December 18, 2018

perfect for marketing of masculinity

I couldn't tell if he was powdering them or punching them.

brad u can ilxmail me anytime if u want a penpal

https://goat.com.au/metoo/gillettes-anti-toxic-masculinity-ad-is-so-sharp-that-of-course-its-cut-toxic-men-deep?fbclid=IwAR1OggiwUqIHfojyOxwyxKLbFk4kAoegEMZKLMICAx3vQTTgZG9lCLgGbvI

Something a fb friend posted from Au.

― There's more Italy than necessary. (in orbit), Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:22 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this catch-22, "if you don't like the ad that just proves how correct and necessary the ad is" reaction to the backlash feels like something that's implicit in the ad itself, and part of the reason why it rubs some men the wrong way? like it's *daring* you not to like it, because if you have a problem with it that means you're fragile/toxic/beta/inadequate/misogynistic etc

I think Breitbart is much more liker to argue (incorrectly) that Procter & Gamble gives a fuck about anything but shareholder value than I am. I see this as a really good example of the oft-ignored proposition that no idea is so righteous that it can't be co-opted. American men as a genre sure can do better than they are doing; P&G also don't give a fuck about me.

yeah I mean obviously they are doing it for their bottom line, I just meant the specific idea that the ad is aimed at women and not men, which I think is very interesting from a marketing/branding perspective

it's *daring* you not to like it, because if you have a problem with it that means you're fragile/toxic/beta/inadequate/misogynistic etc

― soref, 15. januar 2019 18:58 (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yup. It's nicely done.

I mean it makes sense. If I wanted to make an ad aimed at men I'd just make an ad that makes beards look stupid and dated and unattractive.

Here's an idea: First-person POV walking into an office, heads keep turning, attractive women taking notice, all the men have goofy, exaggerated facial hair and are gawking. Perspective switch and you see a handsome, square-jawed, clean-shaven man. He touches his own freshly shaven jaw as if to say "I guess it's the shave." Slogan: "It's time to show your face." That's how you sell to men. Imply that your product will make them more attractive to women and admired by other men, while playing on their insecurities at the same time. It's not that complicated, get your shit together advertisers!

Good ad man alive

i'm cypriot and this anti-beard talk is violence

personally i think shaving products and their advertisements are also needlessly gendered

they kinda did that with the ad showing all the people with shaved heads getting high powered jobs or whatever. idk if it was effective but it seemed like a good shaving ad to me

A - male - friend of mine just retweeted this:

Well, I can tell you exactly which men’s care brand will never get my money, and it ain’t Gillette. pic.twitter.com/6Q4UZ5fuN8

— Dan Moren (@dmoren) January 15, 2019

big who cares

so yeah, it might be about provoking a contrast?

I remember a poet in the "words tent" at Glastonbury in the late 90s had a poem about "is that really the best a man can get?" and "apparently gay people don't shave" - they could've hired him but no.

in these kinds of brand battles over "serious" issues everyone comes out dumber

re boys will be boys - how often is that idiom used to excuse sexually abusive behavior as opposed to stuff like rough housing and general wildness? bc the two are not synonymous. i'm sure it has been used for the former before but recently it has become a stand-in for excusing abuse whereas i think i almost always see it as an explanation for rowdiness.

Isn't it used as an excuse for two boys fighting in the ad?

can't wait for the future when there are distinct woke and anti-woke brands of literally every banal household product and you can't buy toilet paper without it being a political statement

Market segmentation pretty much guarantees that outcome

if gillette is losing money to ppl not shaving (and probably market share to companies like dollar a day or whatever they are called - i don't buy razors bc they're against the torah), then it's unlikely a campaign like this is a bold step forward to reclaiming the market and setting the trends. it's more of a desperation move to generate some publicity. i've seen so many posts on twitter that are like "i like the message but i still wouldn't buy gillette" and that has gotta not be the result they're hoping for

it's more of a desperation move to generate some publicity

Is that true, though? Looking at P&G's 2018 annual report real quickly, it seems like both a) financially they've improved YoY compared to 2017, and b) "Grooming," as a business segment, comprises the lowest portion (10%) of their sales after Fabric & Home Care (32%), Baby, Feminine and Family Care (27%), Beauty (19%) and Health Care (12%). And even the Grooming segment seems to be performing well both in terms of earnings/profit and compared to FY17.

I'll buy anything that makes the process of shaving any easier.

i guess the alternatives are they just really think it'll be a good campaign to generate new business (and maybe it will be! i'm not an advertising professional) or they have a motivation beyond their profit margin (skeptical but sure). honestly corporate social messaging of any sort if sorta bewildering to me but esp when it is such a tone negative ad. the message may ultimately be positive but it's a pretty dark, violent, dreary image their associating with their brand. what do the numbers look like on specifically gillette vs the rest of their brands? maybe that'll give more insight?

The only ads anyone sees these days are the ones that get shared, this has been widely shared, how many of those were hate-clicks is irrelevant, I don't foresee a serious gillette boycott taking place.

if i were gillette i'd be less concerned about a boycott and more concerned about ppl just having general negative impressions of the brand

But it's not a tone negative ad at all? It's uplifting, with strings and everything. They're linking themselves to people like Terry Crews. It's not any more negative, dark and violent, than it would be if they linked themselves to policemen, for instance.

I mean is this any different than the Nike thing really? they know which way the wind is blowing.

i disagree. ppl fighting, ppl catcalling, ppl being abusive, "the best a man can get, or is it" [or whatever the exact idiom was]

the nike thing was uplifting imo in a way this wasn't. they used a controversial figure but they studiously avoided negative themes and attitudes

I don't know who Terry Crews is so it means nowt to me.

yeah I also agree with Mordy, it's a weird-ass commercial with a very dreary vibe