Gillette get political...

[ZedLeg]

Oh my, a "get woke go broke" and a cuck with in a couple of comments. The intellectual dark web are out today.

EA didn't get woke. They foolishly tried to go after a market that wouldn't have bought the game anyway, it was a cynical business decision that backfired. They're no more "woke" than any other stty AAA game company or any other type of giant corporation.

But please continue to not buy their games. If it breaks this cycle of monotonous identikit annual franchise shooters, I'd be all for it.

Also please keep crying about the lack of historical authenticity in your sandbox shooting games .

[j_4m]

ZedLeg said:

Also please keep crying about the lack of historical authenticity in your sandbox shooting games .

I would genuinely like a AAA quality WW2 sandbox shooter that's reasonably realistic. Like the very first Operation Flashpoint but with a higher polygon count and in the 40s. I'm probably not the target demographic though, too old, too long an attention span.

[Russian Troll Bot]

If they'd included the stories about women who actually did fight in WW2 I doubt this controversy would have happened

[j_4m]

There's a pretty good true story about a female Soviet tank commander rescuing an American serviceman who'd legged it from a PoW camp. You'd think that's ready made for a video game plot line.

[JagLover]

ZedLeg said:

Oh my, a "get woke go broke" and a cuck with in a couple of comments. The intellectual dark web are out today.

EA didn't get woke. They foolishly tried to go after a market that wouldn't have bought the game anyway, it was a cynical business decision that backfired. They're no more "woke" than any other stty AAA game company or any other type of giant corporation.
.

I doubt any of these large companies that pursue going "woke" as a marketing strategy are genuinely progressive. It is about favourable press coverage, free marketing, and then hopefully profit. Whether that be EA, Disney, Gillette etc etc.

Which is partly what "get woke go broke" is about. Not only are these companies insulting their key customer basis, they are doing so almost entirely cynically.

[JagLover]

Russian Troll Bot said:

If they'd included the stories about women who actually did fight in WW2 I doubt this controversy would have happened

This

Put in some Russian women snipers and tank crews. Diversity done right with historical realism

[Russian Troll Bot]

Today's gaming controversy is the makers of Dead or Alive managed to get their stream turned off by online fighting organisation Evo for "not representing their core values" with a sexually suggestive acts

https://www.gamerevolution.com/news/497283-dead-or...




But this is the same organisation that heavily promotes Mortal Kombat, whose upcoming release allows you to do this.






So brutally murdering women is ok, but you better not sexualise them.

[JagLover]

Russian Troll Bot said:

So brutally murdering women is ok, but you better not sexualise them.

I'm sure that fosters healthy attitudes to women among teenage boys

[simo1863]

JagLover said:

This

Put in some Russian women snipers and tank crews. Diversity done right with historical realism

or some Nancy Wake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Wake

[FunkyNige]

untakenname said:

Wonder if the campaign has had an impact on their bottom line yet?
Went shopping yesterday and purposely chose a different brand of shaving gel to my usual which was Gillette.

Something popped up on Order-Order earlier about this, they say "Gillette have made an apparent switch in advertising strategies after their parent company suffered an $8 billion hit to its value last month, in the aftermath of its new ‘woke’ advertising strategy which provoked a strong online backlash."

The link they use is this
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-proctergamble-r...

But to be honest I don't understand enough about finance to say if it's Gillette not selling as much, there is "Gillette’s share of the U.S. men’s razors and blades market slipped in 2018 while that of Harry’s and Unilever grew, Euromonitor data showed" so maybe Gillette are selling less?

Order-Order link
https://order-order.com/2019/08/22/gillette-switch...

[captain_cynic]

FunkyNige said:

Something popped up on Order-Order earlier about this, they say "Gillette have made an apparent switch in advertising strategies after their parent company suffered an $8 billion hit to its value last month, in the aftermath of its new ‘woke’ advertising strategy which provoked a strong online backlash."

The link they use is this
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-proctergamble-r...

But to be honest I don't understand enough about finance to say if it's Gillette not selling as much, there is "Gillette’s share of the U.S. men’s razors and blades market slipped in 2018 while that of Harry’s and Unilever grew, Euromonitor data showed" so maybe Gillette are selling less?

Order-Order link
https://order-order.com/2019/08/22/gillette-switch...

The Reuters article cites a 3 year trend of shrinking sales and increased completion so you conclude it must be their current marketing campaign?

I don't think you're cut out to be head of brand development.

Edited by captain_cynic on Thursday 22 August 16:39

[Countdown]

FunkyNige said:

Something popped up on Order-Order earlier about this, they say "Gillette have made an apparent switch in advertising strategies after their parent company suffered an $8 billion hit to its value last month, in the aftermath of its new ‘woke’ advertising strategy which provoked a strong online backlash."

The link they use is this
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-proctergamble-r...

But to be honest I don't understand enough about finance to say if it's Gillette not selling as much, there is "Gillette’s share of the U.S. men’s razors and blades market slipped in 2018 while that of Harry’s and Unilever grew, Euromonitor data showed" so maybe Gillette are selling less?

Order-Order link
https://order-order.com/2019/08/22/gillette-switch...

The main reason for the hit seems to be the strong value of the dollar. They're also suggesting that profits aren't high due to stronger competition and people shaving less. I'd be very surprised if it had much to do with advertising.

[menousername]

captain_cynic said:

FunkyNige said:

But to be honest I don't understand enough about finance to say if it's Gillette not selling as much, there is "Gillette’s share of the U.S. men’s razors and blades market slipped in 2018 while that of Harry’s and Unilever grew, Euromonitor data showed" so maybe Gillette are selling less?

The Reuters article cites a 3 year trend of shrinking sales and increased completion so you conclude it must be their current marketing campaign?

Think he concluded he was not sure it was not just due to to falling sales / increased competition

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

I'd be very surprised if it had much to do with advertising.

Why? P&G spends $10bn a year on advertising. You don't think it usually works?

[Countdown]

fblm said:

Countdown said:

I'd be very surprised if it had much to do with advertising.

Why? P&G spends $10bn a year on advertising. You don't think it usually works?

I'm sure it probably does. However, at an operational level they made a profit. the loss is a write-down because they think future profits are going to be lower. That suggests (to me anyway) that the cause is more a structural thing rather than any backlash to their advertising campaign.

[gregs656]

fblm said:

Countdown said:

I'd be very surprised if it had much to do with advertising.

Why? P&G spends $10bn a year on advertising. You don't think it usually works?

Curious comment - plenty of successful businesses where things 'usually work' have subsided or evaporated completely after the market changed.

Gillette had a good run at extracting vast sums of money for shaving kit but I think that ship has sailed now.

[JagLover]

Countdown said:

The main reason for the hit seems to be the strong value of the dollar. They're also suggesting that profits aren't high due to stronger competition and people shaving less. I'd be very surprised if it had much to do with advertising.

Quite a coincidence that they are also changing their advertising strategy at the same time then

Bit of everything by the sounds of it and having an advertising campaign that was against most of their customer base was hardly likely to have helped.

[NoisyGriff]

It does sound like the $8bn write-down was coming irrespective of recent marketing. Not sure how razor sales are tracked, but it will be interesting to see if Gillette’s downward trend steepened as a result.

It was a stupendously insensitive bit of marketing. Whether you agree that the film was meant as a criticism of the majority of its customers (I do) or not, that is the overwhelming perception. The result will be the same either way.

[grumbledoak]

Of course they aren't going to attribute it to their advert/s, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the cause. There have been several famous advertising disasters, "you're never alone with a (brand of cigarette)", etc.

People don't like to admit their mistakes.

[WinstonWolf]

Countdown said:

fblm said:

Countdown said:

I'd be very surprised if it had much to do with advertising.

Why? P&G spends $10bn a year on advertising. You don't think it usually works?

I'm sure it probably does. However, at an operational level they made a profit. the loss is a write-down because they think future profits are going to be lower. That suggests (to me anyway) that the cause is more a structural thing rather than any backlash to their advertising campaign.

The advert certainly altered my buying habits, I stopped buying Gillette products as a result of their brand direction.