Post: #451

This must have been the first version of the commercial.

Post: #452

(01-23-2019 10:44 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  Yeah I don't know, it's not an easy subject in any case.

I mean IKEA wants to operate in france, sell to the french customers, yet won't pay the french taxes - is it normal ? is it fair ?
Of course taxes suck, nobody is debating that, but they are part of the game.

The people voted to be able to receive some service from the government and someone has to pay for it - why are the poor and the rich exempt, and why should only the middle class always pay for everything ?
That swedish guy, ok just maybe he is actually saving to rebuild his country in some hypothetical future (let's give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how improbable it seems), but then why couldn't I do the same too myself ?

And regarding evasion vs optimization, it gets back to letter vs spirit of the law and apparently nobody wants to discuss this

Ah - if that is your concern, then you cannot buy from any company that is multi-national or even bigger. You only have to buy everything local and best as small as possible so that the owner re-invests as much cash as possible in the country and has as little power as possible to avoid taxes. The local hot-dog brand gives more to the country than the most ethical conglomerate restaurant brand.

Buy local, buy small and medium-company within each country is the best concern.

Still - within major international companies there are positive shitlords and evil psychopaths. IKEA like all internationals pays only essentially the taxes of the employees it hires - whatever they earn in each country respectively is hardly re-invested unless your wages are low enough to merit one of their production outlets.

If you want to think beyond that and go into individual re-investments and shit, then you only have to buy the most local, smallest company everywhere. You could not even watch any movie, but just go to the theater etc.

In my opinion it's a good choice as put out by men here - buy Adidas/Asics vs NIKE, buy Coca Cola vs Pepsi, never watch or support SJW Star Wars, cancel Netflix if their content shits on you, never buy Gillette ever again. At least the vanguard of those SJW managers will be slaughtered by the brunt of this consumer force. The globalist bosses may say that money does not matter, but they are still going to fire the managers who were a bit more enthusiastic about social justice and bombed the revenue too much.

"But I thought that you wanted to stress social justice....?"
"Yeah - I meant maybe a few more black and Latino men in the ad, not shit on all men and all White men."

Post: #453

(01-23-2019 01:00 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 10:44 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  Yeah I don't know, it's not an easy subject in any case.

I mean IKEA wants to operate in france, sell to the french customers, yet won't pay the french taxes - is it normal ? is it fair ?
Of course taxes suck, nobody is debating that, but they are part of the game.

The people voted to be able to receive some service from the government and someone has to pay for it - why are the poor and the rich exempt, and why should only the middle class always pay for everything ?
That swedish guy, ok just maybe he is actually saving to rebuild his country in some hypothetical future (let's give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how improbable it seems), but then why couldn't I do the same too myself ?

And regarding evasion vs optimization, it gets back to letter vs spirit of the law and apparently nobody wants to discuss this

Ah - if that is your concern, then you cannot buy from any company that is multi-national or even bigger. You only have to buy everything local and best as small as possible so that the owner re-invests as much cash as possible in the country and has as little power as possible to avoid taxes. The local hot-dog brand gives more to the country than the most ethical conglomerate restaurant brand.

Buy local, buy small and medium-company within each country is the best concern.

Still - within major international companies there are positive shitlords and evil psychopaths. IKEA like all internationals pays only essentially the taxes of the employees it hires - whatever they earn in each country respectively is hardly re-invested unless your wages are low enough to merit one of their production outlets.

If you want to think beyond that and go into individual re-investments and shit, then you only have to buy the most local, smallest company everywhere. You could not even watch any movie, but just go to the theater etc.

In my opinion it's a good choice as put out by men here - buy Adidas/Asics vs NIKE, buy Coca Cola vs Pepsi, never watch or support SJW Star Wars, cancel Netflix if their content shits on you, never buy Gillette ever again. At least the vanguard of those SJW managers will be slaughtered by the brunt of this consumer force. The globalist bosses may say that money does not matter, but they are still going to fire the managers who were a bit more enthusiastic about social justice and bombed the revenue too much.

"But I thought that you wanted to stress social justice....?"
"Yeah - I meant maybe a few more black and Latino men in the ad, not shit on all men and all White men."

Despite being technically right I think you're missing the point mate. The goal is to set precedence and to punish the gravest perpetrators by inflicting harsh economic consequences on them. It was one thing when they only belittled men in ads targeted mainly at women. But it's another when ads targeted at men are now starting to peddle right think. A line needs to be drawn.

Once advertisers realize that there are grave financial implications to their virtue signaling this shit will fix itself rather quickly. Shareholders are not known to be very forgiving when it comes to tumbling stock valuations.

Post: #454

Hilarious smack talk.

Post: #455

Post: #456

One of the less talked about aspects of this is P&G's bellwether status within the advertising industry. A year ago, either the CEO or CMO, basically took a shit all over digital advertising. Low ROI, untrackable, unproveable, and the shake that sent through the industry trade publications was B-I-G.

Then, they announce they're slashing their budget and pulling a lot more work in house. This was a big problem.

Advertising agencies as a whole are already being bent over a barrel as it stands. Social media adverts really kicked them in the dick.

Martin Sorrell built a fortune on these huge MNC's hanging on his every word.

The ad man died. Which is partially, and I stress partially, why you see such crazy behavior from advertisements. Commercials are generally ineffectual.

Virtue signaling made people take notice. "Edgy" as the kids say. It was one of the few things that worked. Because these agencies are too stupid to realize their good humored or bad taste tongue in cheek ads had been snuffed out by prissy journalists from University of Missouri's School of Journalism. The same organization who will punk them for making a fat shaming joke during the superbowl will gladly accept their ad money for Virtue Signaling spots.

Dummies boxed themselves in but deep down, the majority know the score.

So P&G has historically been a Whale in terms of marketing spend. This backlash is going to make a lot of agencies take notice. And more importantly, every CEO's sphincter tighten when the CMO says "we want to freshen up the brand"

CEO's and CFO's are going to most likely create review boards going forward. Senior Manager in X Brand isn't going to be able to just ok a spot for campaign for a few million anymore.

Generally, reviews don't happen until the AOR (Agency of Record) is up for grabs. CEO's generally don't get involved.

If the board of P&G rips the CEO, there will be hell to pay. Whatever mechanism they create to ensure this doesn't happen again, will be replicated across companies and the "true believers" will have their ideas poked and prodded into a slow death. Case studies galore.

Good times abound! Long live the marketing review board!

Post: #457

(01-23-2019 01:00 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 10:44 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  Yeah I don't know, it's not an easy subject in any case.

I mean IKEA wants to operate in france, sell to the french customers, yet won't pay the french taxes - is it normal ? is it fair ?
Of course taxes suck, nobody is debating that, but they are part of the game.

The people voted to be able to receive some service from the government and someone has to pay for it - why are the poor and the rich exempt, and why should only the middle class always pay for everything ?
That swedish guy, ok just maybe he is actually saving to rebuild his country in some hypothetical future (let's give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how improbable it seems), but then why couldn't I do the same too myself ?

And regarding evasion vs optimization, it gets back to letter vs spirit of the law and apparently nobody wants to discuss this

Ah - if that is your concern, then you cannot buy from any company that is multi-national or even bigger. You only have to buy everything local and best as small as possible so that the owner re-invests as much cash as possible in the country and has as little power as possible to avoid taxes. The local hot-dog brand gives more to the country than the most ethical conglomerate restaurant brand.

Buy local, buy small and medium-company within each country is the best concern.

Still - within major international companies there are positive shitlords and evil psychopaths. IKEA like all internationals pays only essentially the taxes of the employees it hires - whatever they earn in each country respectively is hardly re-invested unless your wages are low enough to merit one of their production outlets.

If you want to think beyond that and go into individual re-investments and shit, then you only have to buy the most local, smallest company everywhere. You could not even watch any movie, but just go to the theater etc.

In my opinion it's a good choice as put out by men here - buy Adidas/Asics vs NIKE, buy Coca Cola vs Pepsi, never watch or support SJW Star Wars, cancel Netflix if their content shits on you, never buy Gillette ever again. At least the vanguard of those SJW managers will be slaughtered by the brunt of this consumer force. The globalist bosses may say that money does not matter, but they are still going to fire the managers who were a bit more enthusiastic about social justice and bombed the revenue too much.

"But I thought that you wanted to stress social justice....?"
"Yeah - I meant maybe a few more black and Latino men in the ad, not shit on all men and all White men."

Adidas is just as bad as Nike. This piece of crap didn't get as much external publicity as the Kaepernick and Gillette ads did, but it was on constantly in the US in summer/fall 2017:

Post: #458

I did my business degree at Ryerson in Toronto. I did two years back when it was a "polytechnic institute". I took 6 years off to join the army, travel the world and start my own business. I went back and finished my bachelors, by which time it made the transition to being "Ryerson Polytechnic University" and then just "Ryerson University". There seemed to be a shift in philosophy. In my freshman and sophomore years my marketing profs had EMBAs and 20 or 30 years of industry experience with - in at least one case - P&G. My senior year prof had a PhD in marketing and taught what I referred to as "voodoo marketing". It would be interesting to know what their respective takes would be on this epic fail, but the old guard are probably dead by now.

On a different note, a problem with social justice marketing is the raw demographics. Only 13% of the population is black, 17% is Latino, less are east Asian or east Indian. America is still about 60% " white" in the strictest sense. It is basically impossible for a 30 second advertisement to realistically portray "diversity".

The fags now want 15% or something of TV roles to be gay when their community is actually less than 5%.

Post: #459

(01-23-2019 01:00 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  Buy local, buy small and medium-company within each country is the best concern.

This is what I am trying to do for quite some time already.
The money you spend locally, well there is a chance that it will come back to you, directly or indirectly.
The money you send to china when you are buying their cheap stuff, well it's not coming back, it's gone forever.

Oh no sorry I forgot - the money will come back, when the chinese come here to buy our maritime ports, airports, cereal fields, vineyards, etc.
So yeah we will see it back, when they come buy our own land with our own money we gave them

Post: #460

Post: #461

(01-23-2019 11:16 PM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  Adidas is just as bad as Nike. This piece of crap didn't get as much external publicity as the Kaepernick and Gillette ads did, but it was on constantly in the US in summer/fall 2017:

Nah - it's not anywhere as bad. It shortly has the Indian name crossed through as a hint towards cultural appropriation, but it's passing. It's mostly a bunch of athletes and urban kids playing and being happy. I don't mind that. It's also an urban ad with many black kids and athletes, because frankly - so many are good at it and maybe they targeted partly that demographic or because the other tribes are aping that R&B/black athlete vibe - which is fine.

NIKE was infinitely worse with a pure BlackLivesMatter campaign.

And Gilette went total retard telling that Whites and men were shit.

I did not see moronic fat white blokes tripping, but I saw Christiano Ronaldo playing with his Adidas shoes. Adidas still did 100 times better even despite the propaganda hint.

Post: #462

(01-24-2019 03:02 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 01:00 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  Buy local, buy small and medium-company within each country is the best concern.

This is what I am trying to do for quite some time already.
The money you spend locally, well there is a chance that it will come back to you, directly or indirectly.
The money you send to china when you are buying their cheap stuff, well it's not coming back, it's gone forever.

Oh no sorry I forgot - the money will come back, when the chinese come here to buy our maritime ports, airports, cereal fields, vineyards, etc.
So yeah we will see it back, when they come buy our own land with our own money we gave them

I am getting my money back from China in the form of SEA Poontang. That is about their only export I am willing to use.

Post: #463

(01-23-2019 11:16 PM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  Adidas is just as bad as Nike. This piece of crap didn't get as much external publicity as the Kaepernick and Gillette ads did, but it was on constantly in the US in summer/fall 2017:

That music was awful, and yeah, I caught the Diversity Crowd's presence, but I'm not about to stand up for anonymous assholes who do nothing but shit talk on the Internet. "Here to Create" is actually a positive message, that I could get behind if there were better music.

Post: #464

(01-24-2019 07:35 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 11:16 PM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  Adidas is just as bad as Nike. This piece of crap didn't get as much external publicity as the Kaepernick and Gillette ads did, but it was on constantly in the US in summer/fall 2017:

Nah - it's not anywhere as bad. It shortly has the Indian name crossed through as a hint towards cultural appropriation, but it's passing. It's mostly a bunch of athletes and urban kids playing and being happy. I don't mind that. It's also an urban ad with many black kids and athletes, because frankly - so many are good at it and maybe they targeted partly that demographic or because the other tribes are aping that R&B/black athlete vibe - which is fine.

NIKE was infinitely worse with a pure BlackLivesMatter campaign.

And Gilette went total retard telling that Whites and men were shit.

I did not see moronic fat white blokes tripping, but I saw Christiano Ronaldo playing with his Adidas shoes. Adidas still did 100 times better even despite the propaganda hint.

"Indians" crossed out but also Arabic writing on the kid's face, LGBTQIROFPEURB49DJR flag, and worst of all a merged US/Mexico flag

At least 4 SJW themes that I caught, there may have been more that I missed. It's more subtle than the Nike ad as most of them are only on the screen for about a second each, but they're there.

Post: #465

< Better propaganda - of course are they down with globalist causes.

You would have to choose a company that is owned by a shitlord and simply never does this at all.

Post: #466

https://youtu.be/Owm2J93guMU

Piss off Gillette, the cavallery is in town

Post: #467

(01-24-2019 10:46 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 11:16 PM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  Adidas is just as bad as Nike. This piece of crap didn't get as much external publicity as the Kaepernick and Gillette ads did, but it was on constantly in the US in summer/fall 2017:

That music was awful, and yeah, I caught the Diversity Crowd's presence, but I'm not about to stand up for anonymous assholes who do nothing but shit talk on the Internet. "Here to Create" is actually a positive message, that I could get behind if there were better music.

I mean yeah, the slogan is positive in and of itself...so is Nike's from the Kaepernick ads. The problem is all the SJW messaging, which is done subtly as compared to the Nike ad and almost makes it more insidious, as you've got a few seconds of SJW crap sprinkled in to an ad that is 95% (in terms of run time) positive, thereby normalizing it. The Nike ad is more in your face but that also makes it easier to counter its message.

Post: #468

Good response

https://youtu.be/x_HL0wiK4Zc

Post: #469

(01-24-2019 10:55 AM)icrus Wrote:  https://youtu.be/Owm2J93guMU

Piss off Gillette, the cavallery is in town

That's hilarious. Low-budget and great:

Post: #470

(01-22-2019 11:22 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(Assuming this even happened) God, did THAT guy dodge a fucking bullet.

With his kind of wishy washy lukewarm reply, he never would've gotten the bang anyway. That's the kind of conersation you might have with work colleagues whom you don't want to offend too much.

On a date?

Her - Oh did you hear about that Gilette commercial? What do you think?

Me - Yeah those fags are worse than fucking nazis, now feel my luxurious lumberjack beard. You think THIS needs a shave by a faggy razor?

Post: #471

Must have forgot...how did their old commercial go back in the day...

Gilette, the best a dweeb can get?

Post: #472

(01-25-2019 02:41 AM)RWIsrael Wrote:  [quote='SamuelBRoberts' pid='1927021' dateline='1548217366']

(Assuming this even happened) God, did THAT guy dodge a fucking bullet.

100% certain this never happened.

Post: #473

(01-25-2019 06:58 AM)Bienvenuto Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 02:41 AM)RWIsrael Wrote:  [quote='SamuelBRoberts' pid='1927021' dateline='1548217366']

(Assuming this even happened) God, did THAT guy dodge a fucking bullet.

100% certain this never happened.

I'll bet she made it up and immediately believed it.

Post: #474

Post: #475

Eye bleach after this gillette ad...

Based Russian singer and comedian Artur Pirozhkov ))