• Sidhean@piefed.socialEnglish
    31·
    13 hours ago

    I get so irate when people sing jingles at me. It was fucking everyone I knew growing up-- classmates, family, everyone but maybe one friend. And only because we didn’t sing or do anything whimsical. Why do people enjoy advertising at me? At least they could try to get paid for shoveling [product] at me, but it doesn’t even register. I’d long ago given up trying to express that I would like to avoid being advertised at. Its just something fun to do to eachother! We sing the corporate jingle and we all have a laugh! Wow! What an interesting way of thinking! Lets go buy [product]!

  • Boozilla@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    13 hours ago

    The only way to win, is to not play the game.

    Speaking of not playing the game, when I want to manage my time better, I rely on…

    • clifmo@programming.dev
      10·
      21 hours ago

      That was genuinely an embarrassment for him, and probably hurt cyber truck sales. More like, sharing his vile racist tweets or video of him performing a Nazi salute

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        6·
        21 hours ago

        Nobody in the world bought cubic truck based on it’s merits. It’s an ideological purchase, and nothing those goobers do or say changes their camp, so it can’t hurt or boost the sales.

          • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
            1·
            18 hours ago

            I’ll go to the grave believing it was either intentional or Musk said ‘fuck it, if it breaks, it breaks’. I have no proof of it, but as soon as I saw it something in me said ‘come on…’. Call it extroverted intuition…

  • fisch@lemmy.world
    22·
    2 days ago

    Look, this politician says really stupid things. Let’s all point out how stupid he is, share it, comment on it and boost it in any possible way.

    • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      21 hours ago

      My preferred curse for journalism is that every time they announce the statement of someone totally unqualified, like Trump, they must also announce the statement of someone equally unqualified, like a drunkard on the street who believes they’re all lizard people that were sent by the Egyptian pharoahs.

      • fisch@lemmy.world
        1·
        15 hours ago

        I mean, I was hoping we could give genuinely intelligent people and educated experts more of a platform, but I guess that works too.

        • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          14 hours ago

          It’s like the “Every time you swear in front of your kids, you must do the Bad Dad Dance” rule. The idea is it’s a punishment that never comes into effect, lest you consign your news program as grifter nonsense.

  • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
    113·
    1 day ago

    The number of people, mostly women, getting outraged about Sydney Sweeney right now shows this very much still happens.

    • SystemDisc@feddit.orgEnglish
      7·
      22 hours ago

      And now I have to go Google what you are talking about, making you that guy 😜

      Edit: So you don’t have to Google it: some apparently famous woman appears in an ad for a company without morals who profits off of exploiting addiction and ignorance, and she is almost entirely nude in most of the ads

      • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
        8·
        22 hours ago

        she is almost entirely nude in most of the ads

        That will stop people from looking it up.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          7·
          21 hours ago

          Dunno why though. The internet is full of actual porn, why bother going to look for some g rated pseudo porn that’s actually just an ad?

          • Nalivai@lemmy.world
            8·
            21 hours ago

            In the same vain, most tits look very similar, so if you saw like 10 different pairs, you get the gist of it and you wouldn’t be surprised by new ones. Yet, for some reason, people keep looking at photos of bare chested women all the time, over and over again.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        21 hours ago

        For those who need slightly more info to not Google it, some actress reached out to some sports betting site (edit:shoe company) and spearheaded an ad that is basically a sports illustrated “body issue” where she puts on some gear or holds some sportsball or stick in front of the naughty bits. The whole controversy is about the sexualization of women on sports (obviously)

        Tap for spoiler

        That’s my 2 minute analysis while on my morning walk, so take it with a container of salt

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      31·
      21 hours ago

      The amount of right wing men who pretend that a big number of women is outraged about her is way, way larger. To the point that I can safely call it astroturfed campaign.

  • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
    301·
    2 days ago

    That plan only works when the ad is not so controversial that it makes people want to boycott the company.

    Because now I am boycotting that company even though I really needed to replace my shoes and already had them picked out.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      2·
      21 hours ago

      I boycotted Canadian tire for years because of their annoying commercials with that guy they tried to write as a normal guy that would talk about Canadian tire products in natural situations… that felt so contrived and fake he just came off as some loser corporate shrill. I remember the first ad was actually for some windshield wipers that looked pretty good but the ads were so off putting I not only didn’t buy those wipers but didn’t step foot in their stores at all until a while after they got rid of that guy (which also sucked for him because he was just some actor doing what some dumbass marketing writers and directors told him to and it did hurt his career because a lot of people hated those ads).

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      18·
      2 days ago

      This assumes you’re in the market for the product / can boycott it.

      For example the biggest culprit of this in my area are ads saying “stop hiring humans” for some AI company. I may hate the company, but my opinion doesn’t matter. The only people that would be in the market for something like that are ghoulish CEOs who just view employees as a cost on their balance sheet. If that ad can make them laugh and look into your product, it doesn’t matter if the other 99% if people hate your company.

      • Axolotl@feddit.it
        3·
        22 hours ago

        This assumes you’re in the market for the product / can boycott it.

        And it’s a correct assumption otherwise the entire point of the meme makes no sense since someone will use it anyway

      • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
        6·
        1 day ago

        Well yes, in this instance I assumed they were talking about the converse ad, and I was literally about to buy some new shoes from them cause my favourite ones just ripped. I saw the ad, will now find another brand to purchase from.

  • ActualGrapesTasteGreen@piefed.zipEnglish
    10·
    1 day ago

    Recently an ad caught my eye by showing somebody putting mustard and ketchup on the shoes on their feet. I have no clue what they were selling.

    • Admetus@sopuli.xyz
      3·
      22 hours ago

      Apparently this is the same guy from ‘Stop drinking, becomes good for society’ advert.

    • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
      27·
      2 days ago

      i hate to be the person giving them exposure, but at the point where they went through bbc and nyt, i don’t think that few people on lemmy make a difference…

      https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crwyzj53pl1lo

      Converse pulls ‘deeply upsetting’ advert after backlash

      American footwear brand Converse has pulled an advert that social media users said evoked Ku Klux Klan imagery, saying it recognised “that we got this wrong”.

      The photo, posted to the company’s Instagram account, received backlash online after critics described lighting in the image as looking like a white pointed hood.

      A pair of shoes, dangling in the picture, were also likened to an image of a lynching victim by social media users.

      • Homosexual sapiens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        23·
        16 hours ago

        I gotta say I really don’t see it. I mean it’s obviously a person’s skirt, and their hand is also clearly visible holding the shoes. Are people viewing this image on 1-bit displays?

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      21·
      2 days ago

      I assumed it was about that recent Converse ad that looked like a KKK hood with someone hanging. When I read the headline about that I thought ‘that has to be an exaggeration or a reach’, but then I searched for it and went oh naw, the people that saw that at first glance weren’t reaching. I can see how an office full of marketing people with zero perspective could miss it, but I feel like most normal people would go ‘damn bro that kinda looks like a KKK hood’.

          • LostCarcosan@lemmy.today
            2·
            9 hours ago

            I can certainly see it, but I also really doubt Converse did it on purpose. Like, for what reason could a shoe company want to purposely show a KKK hood, and why would they go for so artful a depiction if they did? Sometimes an ad is just an unfortunate fuck up, and sometimes it’s Sidney Sweeney proudly proclaiming she’s racist. I think this ad is the former

          • Homosexual sapiens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            11·
            11 hours ago

            This is like thinking the clouds are trying to communicate a message to you because you see a face in them. I can see how one could imagine it when primed to, but the idea that it is in any way meant to evoke that imagery is the big stretch. That’s definitely conspiratorial thinking imo.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              1·
              11 hours ago

              I made no statements anywhere about the intent of the images, and went out of my way to say that I understood how a bunch of out of touch marketers might not see it. That doesn’t make it an appropriate ad that anyone wants associated with their brand.

              • Homosexual sapiens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                11·
                10 hours ago

                That’s fine, I’m not here to defend advertisers. I’m just a little baffled by the idea that people (not you in particular) might be outraged by this ad any more than any other ad for a relatively benign consumer product.

    • Aralakh@lemmy.ca
      8·
      2 days ago

      My first thought was the recent Sydney Sweeney sport betting ad. The fact that we’re having a thread like this, I feel seems to highlight the witty-ness of this comic lol.

    • frog@feddit.uk
      7·
      2 days ago

      Oh… I though the ad was the Roach Poison.

      It’s controversial because roaches don’t share the food, they die and the other roaches cannibalizes each other.

      …

      Um… I might be reading too much in to this. I am probably completely wrong.

      • hypnicjerk@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        2 days ago

        the ad is the roach poison. it’s just saying we poison people in our circle by sharing negative content, and that it’s controversial by design.