|
Non Serviam posted:No, it's like "you should watch the whole thing instead of assuming this is racist, because you're missing the context." nice meltdown
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
Considering the background of soap advertising (and hell, Dove's background in particular), it's baffling that they keep trying to bring up race at all. Surely there are a thousand other ways to sell soap, stick to one you haven't hosed up multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
Yeah, you guys probably know better than the women actually in the advert about how racist and disgusting it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
How would being in the advert change anything. An actor is just an actor, they have no creative control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:No, it's like "you should watch the whole thing instead of assuming this is racist, because you're missing the context." But if you are required to understand the context and take into account the whole material, you cannot participate to the weekly Internet hour of hate. ...Or send feelings, change avatar overlayer into something tackly, and be part of the online movement which totally is going to get something done this time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Toys For Twats posted:Yeah, you guys probably know better than the women actually in the advert about how racist and disgusting it is. I don't know that "a black person agreed to it" is a good excuse for an overtly racist piece of media. I haven't seen the ad but I imagine it's still probably racist if a black woman would agree to be in a film where she's just humiliated and getting beat up by white people and it's not framed as wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
I really want him to explain how acting in something makes you an expert. Like how does that work
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Kojiro posted:Considering the background of soap advertising (and hell, Dove's background in particular), it's baffling that they keep trying to bring up race at all. Surely there are a thousand other ways to sell soap, stick to one you haven't hosed up multiple times. It is actually one of the strategies that sell soap and cosmetics in general. In northern parts of the world companies sell "self-tanning" products and around equator "skin-whitening" products to the people who want to look exotic and/or wealthy. Its just target demographics, although it is also very, very tone deaf from the viewpoint of racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:It is actually one of the strategies that sell soap and cosmetics in general. In northern parts of the world companies sell "self-tanning" products and around equator "skin-whitening" products to the people who want to look exotic and/or wealthy. Its just target demographics, although it is also very, very tone deaf from the viewpoint of racism. I mean, of course if you're selling a product that changes skin tone, you're gonna talk about skin tone, but with soap it's extremely avoidable, and clearly avoiding it is something Dove should have done at least one botched ad campaign ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Kojiro posted:Considering the background of soap advertising (and hell, Dove's background in particular), it's baffling that they keep trying to bring up race at all. Surely there are a thousand other ways to sell soap, stick to one you haven't hosed up multiple times. All they're actually trying to do is include different-looking people in their adverts because they
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Dove includes women of different skin tones, ages and body shapes into their ads because that's what they think will sell soap. They probably would sell skin lightening products in markets where there's a demand. I do believe that the intent with this ad wasn't to portray light skin as better, but honestly I understand the complaint because many people only watch the first seconds of that ad and thus will only see a black person turning white. To the people who made the ad and are aware of the whole content and idea behind it, I can also see why it wasn't obvious to them. Either that or they wanted the viral outrage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Kojiro posted:I mean, of course if you're selling a product that changes skin tone, you're gonna talk about skin tone, but with soap it's extremely avoidable, and clearly avoiding it is something Dove should have done at least one botched ad campaign ago. Showing diversity (of body types, ages, ethnicities...) is Dove's whole marketing identity. pidan posted:Either that or they wanted the viral outrage. Hardly, Dove has been positioning itself as progressive company for ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Toys For Twats posted:Yeah, you guys probably know better than the women actually in the advert about how racist and disgusting it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Yeah, I understand the terrible history of soap ads, and Dove obviously uses diversity/"self-love" to sell poo poo rather than anything else, but it's pretty obvious the intention wasn't "Our soap turns dirty black skin into clean white skin!" and it only becomes that when you cut out the last half of the ad. I mostly feel bad for the actress/model they used, because she's said she was originally super excited for the ad (and was congratulated on being the first one shown), and now her face is associated with a big racism scandal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
How can you criticise Tarantino for saying the n-word in pulp fiction? Do you think you know better than Samuel L Jackson, whom was in that scene with him???? Yeah thats what I thought.....Bjtch
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
A bunch of people that don't watch TV are bitching about a TV ad without watching it
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Was it even a TV ad, all I could find is a five second choppy clip from Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
Remember that terribly racist part of Michael Jackson's "Black or White"? Black people turning into white people all over the place, even the artist did it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
The only morally correct soap is Dr. Bronner's, everyone else is just washing themselfs with sin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Was it even a TV ad, all I could find is a five second choppy clip from Facebook. There's like a 5 second one on Facebook which everyone lost their minds about, then a 15 second and 30 second one which were on other channels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:The only morally correct soap is Dr. Bronner's, everyone else is just washing themselfs with sin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:The only morally correct soap is Dr. Bronner's, everyone else is just washing themselfs with sin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UziYUuTtNw A good documentary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
So many companies try to chase that United Colors of Benetton unicorn.bongwizzard posted:The only morally correct soap is Dr. Bronner's, everyone else is just washing themselfs with sin. The ultimate soap for people who need something to peruse while using the bathroom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:The ultimate soap for people who need something to peruse while using the bathroom. Then I walk out of the bathroom and ask my wife "what the hell did we just buy?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Maybe next time we don't start with the Black lady.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Half a second's thought might have led someone involved in the campaign to say "hey, most people are only going to watch the first 5 seconds of this ad, why don't we put the black woman second instead of first". I don't doubt that it was innocently intended in the context of the full ad but a huge part of marketing is predicting how people are going to experience your advert. My mum has worked in advertising from the film making side for 30 years (she's actually just finished a different job for Dove, funnily enough) and she has a lot to say about how YouTube's 5 second skip has changed the way ads are structured. I asked her about this case and her response was basically that ultimate responsibility rests with the client but she thinks it's nuts that it went out in the form it did because the reaction was very predictable given the history of soap ads and a tiny edit would have sidestepped the problem completely. She also said that Dove are a disorganised and difficult nightmare client and that their campaigns are duplicitous as well as cynical because of course all those 'real women' are aspiring actresses carefully vetted to make sure their 'real bodies' aren't too real but that shouldn't suprise anyone. small ghost has a new favorite as of 14:30 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Werong Bustope posted:Half a second's thought might have led someone involved in the campaign to say "hey, most people are only going to watch the first 5 seconds of this ad, why don't we put the white woman second instead of first". I don't doubt that it was innocently intended in the context of the full ad but a huge part of marketing is predicting how people are going to experience your advert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Maybe next time we don't start with the Black lady. Black people should come second (or later)? Racist!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Look it all of you mansplaining the brave WOC from that advert, shameful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Toys For Twats posted:Look it all of you mansplaining the brave WOC from that advert, shameful. you're a tremendously boring person
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Toys For Twats posted:Look it all of you mansplaining the brave WOC from that advert, shameful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Forgive me if someone linked this story and I missed it, but maybe it would be helpful to include what the actress in the Dove ad had to say about everything. Of course this has been twisted into "she says it's not racist!!!1" which is not precisely what she said. [quote="“Werong Bustope”" post="“477304160”"] Half a second’s thought might have led someone involved in the campaign to say “hey, most people are only going to watch the first 5 seconds of this ad, why don’t we put the white woman second instead of first”. I don’t doubt that it was innocently intended in the context of the full ad but a huge part of marketing is predicting how people are going to experience your advert. My mum has worked in advertising from the film making side for 30 years (she’s actually just finished a different job for Dove, funnily enough) and she has a lot to say about how YouTube’s 5 second skip has changed the way ads are structured. I asked her about this case and her response was basically that ultimate responsibility rests with the client but she thinks it’s nuts that it went out in the form it did because the reaction was very predictable given the history of soap ads and a tiny edit would have sidestepped the problem completely. She also said that Dove are a disorganised and difficult nightmare client and that their campaigns are duplicitous as well as cynical because of course all those ‘real women’ are aspiring actresses carefully vetted to make sure their ‘real bodies’ aren’t too real but that shouldn’t suprise anyone. [/quote] Thank you for sharing this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
HAT FETISH posted:30 years of experience is kinda relevant I guess but Counterpoint: people are bitching and freaking they're poo poo because everyone,,, is too sensitive nower days . Counter-counterpoint: the whole point of marketing is to cynically exploit people for the purpose of selling largely useless crap and the key to that is creating the correct emotional response in your target demographic, so whether or not audience reaction is justified is immaterial to whether this was a dumb move in marketing. Edit: oh wait you were being sarcastic I'm an idiot. Nvm. small ghost has a new favorite as of 14:14 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
HAT FETISH posted:30 years of experience is kinda relevant I guess but Counterpoint: people are bitching and freaking they're poo poo because everyone,,, is too sensitive nower days . I don't think sensitivity was the reason people didn't complain about racist marketing or implied racism in advertising back in the good old days. As has been noted, soap ads are a particular sore spot. A sensitive area, you could say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:I don't think sensitivity was the reason people didn't complain about racist marketing or implied racism in advertising back in the good old days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Werong Bustope posted:She also said that Dove are a disorganised and difficult nightmare client and that their campaigns are duplicitous as well as cynical because of course all those 'real women' are aspiring actresses carefully vetted to make sure their 'real bodies' aren't too real but that shouldn't suprise anyone. I'm not trying to defend Dove, but isn't this the case for literally every commercial on TV? Who else would be in it except aspiring actresses? Obviously Dove is a little oblivious but shouldn't they get some credit for trying to showcase many skin colors and body types? That still puts them way ahead of the traditional 'only thin, beautiful (mostly white) people' in other commercials. Or do you think that Dove should have been scouring Youtube for "real women" and try to hire Simply Sara for their soap commercial?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
King of Foolians posted:I'm not trying to defend Dove, but isn't this the case for literally every commercial on TV? Who else would be in it except aspiring actresses? Obviously Dove is a little oblivious but shouldn't they get some credit for trying to showcase many skin colors and body types? That still puts them way ahead of the traditional 'only thin, beautiful (mostly white) people' in other commercials. Or do you think that Dove should have been scouring Youtube for "real women" and try to hire Simply Sara for their soap commercial? Because Dove's whole marketing strategy is "Real Women, Real Beauty, Photoshop is Evil, Body Image Positive" etc. They do this thing in which they claim that unlike the other beauty companies, who market using heavily photoshopped composites, they present actual women's actual female bodies. In reality, they just pick a certain type of already conventionally beautiful woman whose body is just as unobtainable, with or without photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
King of Foolians posted:I'm not trying to defend Dove, but isn't this the case for literally every commercial on TV? Who else would be in it except aspiring actresses? Obviously Dove is a little oblivious but shouldn't they get some credit for trying to showcase many skin colors and body types? That still puts them way ahead of the traditional 'only thin, beautiful (mostly white) people' in other commercials. Or do you think that Dove should have been scouring Youtube for "real women" and try to hire Simply Sara for their soap commercial? To take your response point by point: 1a) Yes, this is the case for many (but not all) commercials; however some countries have very strict rules regarding the use of 'real people' in ads. To get round this, Dove (and many other companies who do 'real people' ads) engage in all sorts of creative practices and accounting to keep on juuust the right side of the law. I don't know much about advertising standards in the US but these campaigns also play in the UK where the ASA don't gently caress about, you will get your ads pulled if you are provably lying. There also campaigns that genuinely do use 'real' people, see below - Dove's campaign is not one of them. 1b) There's a difference between actively working towards being a professional model or actor and jumping at the chance to be on the telly. Dove are hiring type A, but in such a way as to have plausible deniability to the ASA. When casting calls go out for type B, by the way, the applications absolutely flood in. Many people like the idea of being on film without making it the focus of their professional development, so the question "who would be in it?" can be answered by "literally thousands of people." For example, my mum also recently did an ad for a pet shop chain where real people were filmed with their pets. Those people were cast by walking up to people in the flagship store and asking if they wanted to be in an ad. 2) Dove might be oblivious wrt to accidental racist implications but they absolutely aren't wrt whether their models are type A or type B. The question of whether all representation is good or whether representation done in a spirit of cynicism doesn't count is too large and complex for an easy answer but I think given the way they cast, Dove's campaign is more cynical than most. 3) There is a whole world of women between stick thin models and Simply Sara; Dove pick from juuuuust below model level and claim to represent the whole. 4) *I* don't think they should or shouldn't do anything. I'm not even dragging Dove for their duplicitous campaign; as someone who spent a lot of their childhood watching how the sausage is made I find it laughable anyone even considers campaigns like this are run for any reason other than researched out the arse, hard-nosed cynical brand management. I just think it's funny they hosed up this bad and wanted to offer an inside perspective on why this definitely was a dumb move in marketing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Werong Bustope posted:. I just think it's funny they hosed up this bad and wanted to offer an inside perspective on why this definitely was a dumb move in marketing. Thanks for this insight and the inside perspective. I didn't know about rules some countries have about using 'real people'. Please don't think I was trying to attack you, I just thought it sounded funny to criticize Dove for daring to use aspiring actresses in their commercials but there is obviously more to it than just that. Ultimately even if the commercial wan't intended to be racist you would think that a company who has had issues like this in the past would meet with the advertising people and let it be known that rule #1 is to look at any potential ad from every direction to see if it could be considered offensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
It absolutely isnt rule #1. Rule #1 is does the person who signs your checks like it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:53
|
|
