Waisted_Giraffe Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 All please excuse this little bit of pathetic self indulgence and wallowing but there is a point........ Yesterday I took part in the Men's Health (magazine) Survival of the fittest event in Nottingham; approx 12km urban assault course along the River Trent with approx 10 obstacles including hay bale walls, muddy pit cargo net crawls, hang tough monkey bars, swimming through lakes etc etc Now as a rule I don't do any running, however I will regularly knock out 30+miles cross country mountain biking, so had done no practice at all (I only agreed to do the event on Thursday night) However, despite no practice, I made myself run the full distance and completed the course in approx 1:25; On completion we received a goody bag that includes a copy of this months magazine. I've just been reading through it this morning and feel that the contents generally being a load of "aspirational" c**p, I certainly don't fall within it's demographic - despite that, it didn't help my mental demeanour with all its aspirational guff and that the girl I was seeing recently has kicked me to the kerb - I was feeling a bit pathetic not having any real aspirations at the moment (other than completing on buying a house). Despite a lot of the advertising being for metro sexual versions of long standing women's products, towards the end of the magazine I saw this advert, which pretty much summed up my thoughts on the image the magazine is portraying, so it's about to be tossed in the bin without a second thought and I shall continue to plow my own furrow. R apologies it's only a mobile phone picture
scrappycoco Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 That is where we should take that article out of the mag and send it back to who ever and say "Look I am a guy and I do wear these, but since you said that I wont be using this!" LOL
Dr. Shoe Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Just shows how out of touch they are... lol Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
Guest Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Spot on scrappy. I'd even lob a photo to prove it with two fingers up, I'm sure it would be printed with some snide comments from the Ed. Al
heelguy Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I think you should definately write to them explaining that you do wear heels, and that their advertising has just cut out a proportion of the market they were hoping to aim for!
Guest Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 another stupid example of "for men/him-for women/her" type of crap is brainwashing if ever I saw it, I use anything that I happen to like, & I don't really care how the hell it is labeled for marketing!
roniheels Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 You all have great points and ideas. I would have thought Loreal would be "open-minded" with its products hoping that not only women, whom they were originally aimed at, but that men might even try them similar to what demoniaplatforms said. And I wonder how many so-called "macho, manly men" would even try a product by Loreal? The company has shot themselves in the foot and alienated many!
Charlie Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 It's kind of ironic. They're trying to sell something that smells nice with an ad that stinks.. lol Charlie Everything I say is a lie!.......I'm lying
Steve63130 Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 While I detest that advertisement also, I see their point. The ad's purpose is to distinguish that this product is for men, but unfortunately it does so in a way that offends us heelers. I face the same kind of delicate situation in my business. As most of you know, I sell support tights, pantyhose, stockings and socks for men under the Activskin brand (no "e" if you google it) and I have chosen to market these products as a men's product, not as a unisex product (and certainly not as a women's product) that "it's okay for men to wear." Men are socially conditioned to be strong, so wearing legwear, which is considered mainly for women, challenges that conditioning, and literally terrifies most macho guys. Thus, given that a lot of men are very insecure about wearing (or at least getting caught wearing) legwear for women, it seemed to me like a good idea to give them something that is especially for them. Our products, particularly those with a fly opening, are clearly intended for men, and a guy who is otherwise paranoid about wearing legwear can feel comfortable in a product intended for guys. Directing your product to a niche market is called market positioning, and it's exactly what L'Oreal is trying to do with its moisturizer. The ad is attention-getting (men like to look at women wearing high heels) and it does an effective job, I think, at establishing a separation that positions the product clearly in the men's market niche. As advertising goes, it's not bad, and the use of the high heel icons to make the letters is clever. We just happen to be in that tiny insignificant minority that is offended by it. I don't think L'Oreal cares. Steve
pussyinboots Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Just shows how out of touch they are... lol It also shows just how badly the advertising industry is monitored these days. There are hundreds...probably thousands....of adverts now that break all the rules of sexism. The Tetley Beer adverts are one such series...aimed directly at sexist males, and using sexist taglines that denegrate women. Sexist stereotypes can be seen in just about any kind of marketing and advertising these days, and not only does it brainwash the less intelligent adult market, it's also poisoning the minds of the younger generations. "Good Girls keep diaries....Bad Girls just don't have the time...!:icon_twisted:"
SleekHeels Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 It reminds me of a certain chocolate bar which I've refused to buy since they adopted their "not for girls" branding ( http://www.virginmedia.com/homefamily/fooddrink/greatest-chocolate-bars.php?ssid=9 ), and if they launched a "not for boys" version I'd refuse to buy that too. I agree those Tetley beer commercials are awful... but others have played with gender in a slightly more sophisticated way: If you like it, wear it.
pussyinboots Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 It reminds me of a certain chocolate bar which I've refused to buy since they adopted their "not for girls" branding ( http://www.virginmedia.com/homefamily/fooddrink/greatest-chocolate-bars.php?ssid=9 ), and if they launched a "not for boys" version I'd refuse to buy that too. I agree those Tetley beer commercials are awful... but others have played with gender in a slightly more sophisticated way: Yes. The 'Lynx' deodorant commercials are another one......and I agree with you about the 'Yorkie' ads (for it is they who are 'not for girls'). They are appallingly sexist. Just as an aside....has anyone in the UK seen the 'webuyanycar.com' adverts lately..? Since when did nice middle class folks start pulling 'gangsta' hand moves to describe their actions.......Innit? Now...back to the original thread..... "Good Girls keep diaries....Bad Girls just don't have the time...!:icon_twisted:"
pussyinboots Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 The Stella Artois advert was pretty cool. Well yes....it would taste awful if it was warm..... "Good Girls keep diaries....Bad Girls just don't have the time...!:icon_twisted:"
Recommended Posts