www.curiositystream.com/hbomb... Can a product be truly progressive? How can I free my skin? Let's discuss! My Twitter: / hbomberguy My Patreon: / hbomb My Twitch: / hbomberguy
@@patrickcrabb6212 I had chest hair at age 9 and my "widow's peak" started receding fast in my teens. School told me to start shaving my moustache when I was 12. I got in trouble for beard stubble when I had shaved 4 hours earlier, which they didn't believe. At 30 I'm surprised I still have any hair remaining on top...
@@msjkramey Communism is when the corporations like black people. And it’s more communism the more black people they like. And when they like a real lot of black people, it’s Marxism
@@msjkramey Sorry I was just making a reference to a meme video. The original was something like “Socialism is when the government does stuff”, but I changed some of the words around to make it better fit this situation
Right...that's the hardest part of this whole thing. I get to watch my fellow countrymen....DEFEND a child predator while having the audacity to at the same time refer to Democrats as pedophiles. Whether or not they are, that's not the point of this post. My point is that they condemn one side while simultaneously defending the other on the same topic.
OK so not only did the same thing happen again with Bud Light and Barbie, but also the account who took a picture of the razor in their toilet is Andrew Tate before his big blowing up. Harry was truly ahead of his time. He also predicted he would go bald.
@@nineinchthreadOK so Andy Tate used to do these dumbass tweets about star wars saying if you’ve ever seen the movies you would never be a millionaire or know what a woman feels like and so on. He also has a get rich coarse he calls the warroom so when i saw this i assumed it was him but i cant remember if i found any evidence. I think i remember i found something that confirmed my suspicion when i first commented this but i really cant remember now. So maybe no.
Honestly looking at the reflection I don't think it's him: the person has appreciable hair from what I can tell. Unless Tate for some reason wore a wig, I don't think there's any way that could've been him (not that him doing that is implausible).
Keurig was tame compared to Gillete. It's not the message that bothered people -- it's the perceived arrogant, patronizing, and condescending tone they took; a public emasculation -- figuratively and literally. I think had the commercial not taken the route of "shame! shame! shame!" when it comes to the male gender and instead had more of a message of "what separates boys from men is..." and display how real men act or should act in a flattering way then it would've been perceived better. Sure some would still throw a fit but it would be easier to ignore and less likely to reach. It's all about optics and it's unfortunate that to get a message across you have to chastise and arguably humiliate a group of people, valid or otherwise. It's not about "they can stand to be brought down a peg," because at that point it's just revenge, it's about closing the loop in the never-ending cycle of attack and response. Because as soon as one side picks a fight, then the other goes on the defensive and begins looking for ways to attack, discredit, or bring down the opposition and suddenly we find ourselves in an impasse where neither side wishes to acquiesce or apologize for fear of being perceived weak or their entire cause invalid (even if some aspects are moronic).
@@highjumpstudios2384 They are in the bible, not from it. Writing down what you consider decent behavior in the book that is to be used to form society around just makes sense. Morality proceeds Christ because humans do. edit: just realized I wrote nothing of importance to the discussion. What I meant is don't defend christian people by saying they are the discoverers of morality, they are not. And even if Christians upheld the ideals of the bible all of them would be communist!
To be fair at least he's trying to actually make something with ultra right beer to complete with bud light instead of just destroy bud light cans and complaining about them
Honestly, my favourite part of the Gillette "Short Film" thing was that Gillette made a commercial that basically said, "Men, we can do better," and a whole bunch of men stood up and screamed, "NO THE F*CK WE CAN'T!"
@@RainaThrownAway y’all really are going out of your way to not understand why customers react negatively to being called abusive sexist assholes. Also what was that thing with the endless grills and dads with folded arms chanting “boys will be boys” wtf is wrong with grilling?
@@goblinslayer7096 With the assumption that you want an honest discussion about this, here is my take: I understand why customers would react negatively to being called abusive sexist assholes, but I counter that the company isn't doing that. Rather, the company is calling these *behaviours* sexist and abusive. It may be a small difference, but it is an important one. Namely, that calling *you* a thing implies that it is an indelible part of you which you cannot escape, while calling a *behaviour* a thing equally implies that you can distance yourself from it and improve. In the same way that you must acknowledge a problem before you can fix it, these commercials are calling *out* a problem, not calling *you* a problem ("you" being used here not to directly implicate the person reading this, but simply as a generic second person). As for what's wrong with grilling: nothing is wrong with grilling. What is wrong is the legions of men just shrugging their shoulders and letting unchecked violence happen rather than trying to encourage more peaceful conflict resolutions.
what's worse is that if you go far enough up the corporation food chain, everything is controlled by like, what, 10 total mega corporations? choice is basically an illusion in most cases, unless you're buying from a small independent company or local business. so even if you destroy your product of one brand and actually commit to buying only from another brand, your money is very likely to find its way into the same pockets no matter what. literally, one of the greater tools of marketing is to pit two brands against each other while ultimately controlling both. I think the "left twix vs. right twix" is probably just an extremely meta joke to other advertisers because it so blatantly lampoons the concept. I'm actually a little surprised that they'd show their hand so obviously.
"Companies don't have values, companies have marketing strategies" I don't know where I heard it originally but it's a phrase that has stuck with me and I'm always fond of repeating it. And Ironically I actually use a Schik Hydro but I'd never seen that "Hydrobot" before, now I'm afraid.
Okay, that's a good quote and all, but since you use Schik, could you explain to me what "freeing your skin" means? If it turns you into some freak of nature, count me in! I'd toss out the Gilette razor I bought to replace the Gilette razor I threw into the toilet and posted on Twitter years ago in a heartbeat.
The guy burning his five pairs of Nikes is accidentally telling everyone how spoiled he is. He has five pairs of Nikes. He has four more pairs of overpriced athletic/mobility shoes than he needs, and one of those pairs had just been purchased a few days prior.
In reality though it is useful to have more than one pair of shoes. I personally have a pair of high heels, a pair of crocs, a pair of boots, a pair of winter crocs, a pair of winter boots, and a pair of Walmart crocs that lost their back strap and are now slippers.
Omg as a leftist Im so offended by those guys breaking a billion dollar company’s coffee machine cuz they took a stand on the controversial opinion “child molesters are bad”. Seriously who do those guys think they’re offending
I’m coming back to this 4 years later bc seeing people lose their shit over Kid Rock shooting cans of bud light has led me to realize people still have not caught on to this
First time seeing my name spelled like that, but the thing is Austyn, the whole beer debacle is based on a product that isnt an item to wear or use to create something. It's a product that is basing its success and financial profitability on the fact that people consume it. Base that on the entirety of the companies main consumer market being ostracized by its PR/Advertising and then you have an issue. Plus it is actually working. Both companies posted an average in declining sales around the 10% mark (to date not gonna claim anything for the future) and both companies have laid off a big amount of the marketing/advertising executives. Overall pretty successful in my opinion.
This video says that these boycotts don't work, but the bud light boycott did work, they took a huge hit. And people were right to protest over their stupidity.
In some of those countries, you might get killed for going against the leaders, and those countries might be major markets. Of course they don’t change anything.
Really? Anti-woke boycotts are in full swing and companies are losing billions of dollars in sales, market share and share price. This video aged like milk that was bought a week after the expiration date.
@@Erich21 That would actually make more sense. Since grooming and taking away their fur is the main purpose of the product. However, "free your skin" is just fucking terrifying. It should have said something like "free your hair". But even that is pretty weird.
I did a master's in marketing but I a bachelor's in psychology first and it really was eye-opening. It was essentially just how soulless corporations manipulate people. The final nail in the coffin for me was when we learned about Coca-Cola's Hello Happiness campaign that took advantage of migrant workers in the UAE to show how they cared about people but it was such obvious virtue signalling.
Finally, someone is drawing attention to the fact that corporate versions of popular political talking points aren't primarily representative of those beliefs, they're marketing strategies.
HEY WOMEN! You are a strong and independent and don't need no man! But job? Look pretty on job? Buy fairness cream to slather on your face and then.. and then get respected on job! Yay feminism! (Granted the fairness cream thing is more about Indian brands, but you just copy paste this strategy to the entire cosmetic and beauty industry)
I dubno why folks think it's new, cinema has been doing this for decades. What do you think Green Book is? Or Bohemian Rhapsody? "Gosh, I'm so glad *we* more enlightened about homophobia and AIDS today. That'll be 17.99 for your ticket." I wouldn't say that that's the entire purpose of most of these films but that's what they're doing in the press junkets. Oscar campaigns too. Look at Dallas Buyers Club. Managed to insult every letter of the LGBT community big time. Implied lesbian conversion, a real bisexual man's history was erased to turn him into a homophobe, a real-ish (it's complicated) cis gay man was turned into a trans woman on the basis that he did drag, and that same character had nothing changed about them except for a more cliche backstory than you'd find in Dog Day Afternoon, and played by a cis man which has all sorts of nasty implications. They sold it as a progressive film though so guess what happened? Best Picture Nomination, Best Supporting Actor Nomination, etc. Jared Leto won the latter for a frankly mediocre performance because it was *so brave* for him to play a marginalized character that he literally personally wrote on the fly. That's what #TheForceIsFemale is. Do they have a point? Of course! You can type "best directors" into google and it'll give you a list of fifty directors in the sliding bar at the top, every single one of them a man. Something's up. Is buying a Star Wars brand t-shirt that was made with sweatshop labour for $18 going to change anything? Hell no. It's just the shameless appropriation of real values and issues to advertise a movie series and make a buck at the same time. The flipside do it just as much if not more. When I say "christian cinema" you know exactly I'm talking about because it's probably the best example of this phenomenon. Movies that 99% of the time are plainly mediocre if not outright bad films being sold as religious praxis. That's how Passion of the Christ became the most profitable R-rated film ever. It's a mediocre film, not even Mel Gibson's best christian cinema film (that'd be Hacksaw Ridge) but people ate it up because i was sold as the christian thing to do. Cinema's been doing this for decades. I'd argue that films going back as far back as the 80s. Theatre too - RENT is a great example. The Producers borderline parodied this phenomenon as it exists in theatre. It was only a matter of time before the companies that make french fries and lightbulbs started joining in.
The left couldn't give a shit about child labor. They're the ones who buy iPhones from manufacturers that have suicide nets outside of their buildings so they can shitpost on twitter about how "woke" they are because Donald Trump said a mean word.
te1 then don’t act like you’re some moral arbiter that has to talk down to the commoners about, like Gillette telling men to be more responsible as if men don’t already hear this enough constantly. An advertisement’s job is to sell a product, not tell me how to live my life or some other pretentious nonsense.
@@te1327 Almost everything is produced unethically? How about planes? How many of those are put together by slave labor? Oh, none? How about cars? None as well? Well surely houses are built through slave labor, oh wait, those aren't either? Then what is? Oh, phones and shoes. Right.
@user-hz6fj9xy4y yeah honestly I’m impressed at how big that whole thing became. If they could put such a divot in a company just for having a person they think is illegal and evil in an advertisement, imagine what they could do when they go up against an actually actively bad and morally evil company like nestle or something
@@aaronsmith1023 why right wingers though? Many stupid people from left and right are retarded but most of these people have no ideology but rather lose 20 bucks for a few minutes of fame. calling them right wingers ist just as stupid as destroying your stuff. You are not better than them.
I wish I could make a series of “uncomfortable advertisements” that was just a man in a suit calmly describing whatever product they’re selling in the most nihilistically depressing way possible.
Do it for a fake thing, post it on social medias so it hopefully goes viral and legitimises you in the eyes of ad companies, and also send it in to as agencies as your portfolio, profit. Just make sure to unionise your workplace when you get hired.
additionally also absolutely crazy that so many women's razor ads are selling razors, but they know its not feminist to say women have to shave, so they also use this "YOU DONT NEED TO SHAVE GIRLBOSS! (buy our razor)" tactic. It's really eerie and strange, and makes something as un-radical as not shaving your natural body hair into an activist point to be sold
Also, discounting political discourse, that feels like a pretty counterproductive slogan to use in your advertisements given they're advertising razors. It'd be like advertising cigarettes by saying, "You wanna get lung cancer?" I think it's supposed to be an ironic slogan, but even then it just seems like an odd marketing strategy when your slogan is directly contradicting the need for the very product you're trying to sell.
@@noahvance6160 Even more ironic is the fact that cigarette companies actually do fund anti-smoking PSAs. The human psyche is deeply irrational and advertisers know it.
@@ishanpm_ Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but (man that sounds bad) one I find compelling is that a lot of the anti-vaping ads are actually made to be ineffective. One of my friends who's been trying to quit has said nothing has made him want a vape more than that breath of stress air commercial they ran for a while.
The boycott segment actually helped me process something that's always confused me. I don't feel like this iteration of right wing protest understood the concept of a boycott. Which... actually might explain when a lot of the same circles bafflingly complain that left wing people are too triggerhappy about boycotting things and instead should express themselves in a free market by just not buying from those companies. ...Which is what a boycott primarily refers to in consumer contexts. Destroying your own property on video IS certainly a form of protest, and sometimes effective at spreading the word, but is not integral or even relevant to the strategic concept that boycotts are meant to employ. Even in other contexts, if you boycott the Olympics you don't disband the agency responsible for your national team. if you boycott a negotiation you don't inherently withdraw from previous treaties and fire your interpreters. you refuse to accept an Oscar, not melt down any that you've previously won ...If that's what a lot of these people think a boycott is, I can ignore any hypocrisy to fully agree with them that left wing activists should eschew that tactic and focus on new purchases instead
*ahem* "Hey fellow gays! It's Pride Month and we totally believe in supporting YOUR rights! That's why we even changed our logo to a rainbow! See how progressive we are? Now you HAVE to buy our products because WE totally support you and DON'T just want your money!!!"
siddbastard there’s no “you people,” everyone has a different opinion on it. Lgbt people don’t have the same opinions on everything. One person’s corporate pandering could be another’s much-needed representation, it all depends on the individual. We’re just recognizing that large corporations don’t take stands on political issues unless they think it’s profitable.
Funny thing is this. The sooner pride month stops being such a prominent thing to the LBGT comm. AND they stop responding to this obvious pandering by governments and companies alike, the sooner they'll discover which companies legit believe in their cause enough to bend over backwards to satisfy them. Which is what they always want, if Twitter and Tumblr are any indication.
I wish corporations would stay the fuck out of politics. Oh you thought I meant commercials? That would be nice, but I'm talking about the millions they spend bankrolling politicians and lobbying for tax breaks and anti-consumer laws to protect their corporate interests.
I remember not liking the Gillette ad because I was viciously against being told I was a man who needed to learn this stuff turns out I just wasn’t a man lmao
@@claire156 Sounds like you were just duped. I'd used Gillette products for years but after their woke ad, I used up the remaining blades I had, then threw the handle away and bought a different one. Haven't bought a Gillette product since.
If I dont randomly aggressively follow attractive women I see walk by on the street how the heck am I supposed to find my victims?!?!?!?! Does anybody think of the serial killers when Gillette makes these short films?!? No. They don't.
I saw this was posted a couple weeks ago and wondered how accurate it was, but from all the things I've seen, Bud Light left Dylan Mulvaney out on a ledge to be ridiculed (pissing off the LGBT community), introduced uncomfortable ideas to their conservative community (rebranding themselves as a "gay beer" and pissing off a relatively small portion of their customers by volume iirc, a lot of them really don't mind woke culture), watched their numbers tank by about 2 BILLION dollars (with a B), and tried to reverse hard in the other direction. Last I heard from them they were going straight MAGA, partnering with the UFC to become the most /pol/itically incorrect beer. Anheuser-Busch is the case study of when something like this doesn't work; probably because even if they marketed to those kinds of politically correct communities they wouldn't immediately start buying their shitty product it's all marketing, they never actually supported anything, and IMMEDIATELY revert course the second they felt a sting in their profits lol
@@Punsmaster2 yeah see the real smart move from Busch would have been going all in on getting old Bud Light customers to pivot to the Good Ol' Boy's beer, Natty Light.
but, you ever thought that if beer, truck, and football businesses are becoming liberal, and companies only care about money despite those having conservative consumers, that there's something going on? like a large investment firm that wants them to become liberal?
@@skoop651 no, as bomberman said, progression sells, alot, more then the loud minority (conservatives), it attracts more people on all sides, for good and bad reasons (hatred, and pride)
Coming back to watch this again since right wingers are freaking out over bud-lite supporting lgbtq. I've seen so many cans get dumped out or thrown away, it's hilarious every time.
No its because a grown man shaving his jaw down and dressing up like a 6 year old little girl promiting a drink that adults consume is kiiiiinda off putting.
The funniest part isn't even said in the video: turns out the ones who jack off to "capitalism" and "markets" don't understand capitalism and markets. If you own some new Nikes, and you want to hurt the Nike business, you *sell* them at below market rate to people who would otherwise buy them from the company. If they flooded the market with cheap Nike shoes as a protest, they could have actually hurt sales and made some people worried for a few weeks. The last thing you want to do is destroy them and raise the scarcity, raise the demand, and have Nike laughing all the way to the bank since they're the only source of Nike shoes left.
I just had to laugh at your comment. When people destroy Nike shoes, it's NOT that there is a scarcity for Nike shoes, or there is a rise in demand; it's just that the size of the Nike shoes market is smaller (by a tiny amount). People who destroy the shoes are most likely ordinary users; not re-sellers. And them re-sellers won't even think of destroying their only way of making a living. The first part is good though, although it will only happen on a small scale; their reselling Nike shoes at a lower price won't affect much Nike's revenues. So again, the buyers (buying from those discounted shoes) get all the benefits; and Nike isn't even affected.
The most harmful thing they could've done is give their nikes to homeless people, imo. That wouldn't directly affect the demand, but it would create a negative association with people who wear nikes and hurt the brand image.
Remember when a conservative dude had a total meltdown over Starbucks Christmas cups being red and told his audience to protest Starbucks by BUYING A COFFEE and saying their name was “Merry Christmas” so that the overworked baristas had to write it on the cups? That’s a corporation’s dream right there.
@Laurel Vincett Nah, I remember him. He was infamous in atheist circles for being an evangelical Christian who was vocal about far right bullshit like calling homosexuality sinful and saying women should know their place. His video over the Starbucks cups was the typical “War on Christmas” victim complex narrative.
I don't know why you bring up the idea of "overworked baristas" writing "Merry Christmas", like it's that hard to write 2 words. I doubt they'd care. They would roll their eyes and briskly write "Mevy Crristmas"
Robert Eiva I think the point wasn't about whether the baristas cared or not I think it is something TheLaxLex just had in mind while writing the post and demonstrates that the people who did this are always saying that the most commercial holiday is under attack.
At a certain point you have to ask yourself "which side should ease the breaks: the ones making the admittedly condescending commercials or the ones responding with shameless fervor?" Because on one hand the ones overreacting get angry for reasons they might not be able to articulate, but on the the other if the former made their ad disengenuois in their messaging therefore provoking the kind of people that would obviously take offense to it (which would of course made them loopback and further propagate the perception of "anyone who disagrees are any variation of -ist or -phobe") then the backlash wouldn't exist in the first place. I argue it's the secret third option: the ad companies that deliberately instigate both sides against one another to maximize profits.
@@TheMeditorEditorPeople only find the commercials condescending because they don’t like what it tells them. The Gillette ad didn’t say “All men are sexual predators and you should feel bad”, it just said, “Hey, let’s avoid making misogyny a part of masculinity.” And if you find yourself so incensed over the idea of just respecting other people that you need to burn your product for retribution, you’ve got issues. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s reactionary.
@@tanookisam4911 Though it is undeniable the ones who reacted negatively to the ads are not admirable in general, I'd still say the ones in the wrong are the companies. You see... the companies did not act in good faith. Maybe Keurig did, but the ones that followed in Keurig's footsteps sure didn't. They're deliberately annoying and condescending to people as to make them mad so they may generate free publicity. It is an abuse of labor AND a deliberate exacerbation of the current trend toward polarization and political tribalism. All in the service of a line on a graph. Could you imagine if a company did that with some other topic? If a company deliberately leveraged the rivalry between football teams as to make the rivalry less amicable? Or if they deliberately stirred animosity against cats as to trigger cat lovers? Dialogue between the left and the right isn't amicable as it is, the last thing we need is brands jumping in for profit.
@@tanookisam4911 Imagine an ad criticizing black people committing crimes. I'm sure the reaction by reasonable people like you will be "oh they're not talking about all black people, just the toxic blackness that leads to increase in crime rates". Surely, if anyone finds themselves incensed at the idea of not committing crimes, they're the ones with issues.
@@tanookisam4911 The problem with the Gillette ad is that it was suggesting that being a sexual predator was somehow related to the general theme of masculinity or being a man. No one ever tried to make sexual assault a part of masculinity in the first place. Every man in the Western world knows r*pe is wrong. In short, it was a completely needless and pointless virtue signal, tantamount to Gillette standing on a soap box and shouting "Hey! sexual assault is bad! Look at how virtuous we are! We're calling the bad thing bad!". It was absolutely accusatory and condescending, and if you can't see that, you're part of the problem.
not a very dramatic show of protest though. i guess when you're white, middleclass and buy shoes as a hobby (he had 5 pairs of just nike) the destruction of the property for social capital is worth it? :shrug:
@@daltonbedore8396 Who the hell owns five pairs of shoes? If i had more than one pair of normal shoes (not including more formal ones) i would probably just get stuck using only one pair because it's more comfortable.
@@matti.8465 I buy 3 pairs of shoes at a time, only because it's cheaper for me to buy shoes from Amazon America and have them shipped to Australia to buy the same shoes here. Then I have enough pairs of shoes to last me 3 years.
@@daltonbedore8396 it actually WOULD be a dramatic show of protest. It's the sort of thing that people would understand and could be very dramatic. As opposed to the laughable destruction of your own things which isn't dramatic. It's just copying what was dramatic decades ago. Throwing tea into the Mississippi wasn't just dramatic because it made the Mississippi taste good. It was dramatic because you know each box is destroyed and costing the company money. Burning your own shoes is the sort of thing people do when they want to imitate that kind of protest but just think "massive destruction = drama".
Interesting parallel: earlier this year, during the George Floyd protests, a skate company called Mota came out *against* the protesters. The roller derby community were disgusted; famous skaters unanimously cut sponsorship ties, and skaters who had Mota boots removed or otherwise covered the logo. No-one gave them airtime. No-one publicly burned their skates. Those who dropped them as sponsors said why, but spent most of their energy in promoting Black Lives Matter. Mota's biggest customer base was roller derby, which is a pretty tight community, so word travelled fast, and it seems like they've lost a lot of their core sales base (they're now appealing to "patriots" and the Blue Lives Matter crowd, finding them in different skating disciplines). Woke brands sure are about getting that money, but boycotting - when done right - can work.
No. It's like when I get angry and punch a hole in my house.... Great. Now my hand hurts, possibly fractured, AND I need to spend time and money to fix it.... But boy did I show that drywall who's boss.
"Hi, we at [Company Name] are in support of [Whatever the Current Issue is] and we find it abhorrent that [Someone is Doing Something Badly]. Even though we won't call out corruption or the hypocrisy, we hope the [Victimized Group] will be shown support by others and you continue to buy [Our products]. Thank you."
The most ironic thing about the "burn my Nikes" trend was that the actual way to hurt Nike would be to donate the shoes to charity. Like, make sure that they're not being resold to thrifty but upmarket consumers, try to make sure they are being worn by poor people. Once Nike has your money, the only way you can actually hurt them is to try and devalue their brand. And despite any posturing from their PR outfit, Nike definitely wants people to think that their shoes are expensive, not shoes of the poors. I'm not sure whether this just never occurred to the "burn them" camp or if they are allergic to giving anything to the poor, as that would be some kind of handout.
Like many others I'm sure, coming back to this banger of a video in 2023 when right-wingers are now mad about beer being too woke. Cool world we live in.
They're just not using an easily replaceable product because they disagree to a core with a message the company is trying to Promote. While I may have my own problems with the campaign, it isn't terrible at it's core. It's just people saying "I won't buy your beer anymore because I fundamentally disagree with what you are pushing"
@Birds In Crime eExactly, I don't see the harm in it either, it's not like they're violently protesting, looting or setting fire to anything, they're simply voting with their wallets.
The best and most memorable commercial that I saw here, in Russia was like this: White screen, zero sound. Text appears : "We care about you, that's why we decided to give you 10 seconds of silence(calmness)". Then the company logo appears. That's it. FUCKING GENIOUS, if you think about it.
That dude didn't just destroy several pairs of Nikes, he also made sure he can never use his outdoor fireplace again because it makes the entire yard smell like burning tires.
The only big difference to between these two groups (I hate them both) is cancel culture is targeting people They target corporations. Cancel culture has ruined lives These tantrums dont
@@the_br0wnie294cancel culture ruins lives by bringing social justice to bad individuals. If you're a target of cancel culture, you're probably the issue
@@the_br0wnie294also, typical centrist behavior, over exaggerating the left sides negatives while promoting the right as a more stable side of the political compass
@@the_br0wnie294 in your mind, what side would you associate with hatred against corporations for being inclusive and aware, and what side would you associate with hating individuals for being terrible people with anti-progressive world views and behaviours. My point here is that while yes, your talking about two "ideas" you mentioned a group, ideas aren't "groups" there followed by groups of people, this case people with different political views. Also, the first thing you said "i'm not on any side or group" is simply not true, you don't choose what to associate yourself with just because, your world and political views determine your position on the political compass
I really like that message at the end - try to ignore the noise of intentionally egregious and shock-value advertising, and invest your energy on yourself and the things/people you love. It's hard to make big waves as an individual person, but being strong in your own self and building up the community directly around you makes a difference. Thanks for all the entertainment HBomb - I've been binging your channel since the two most recent videos. All your effort is appreciated :^)
imagine having your dad lose his mind every time some brand does a new ad campaign and burn all the shoes in your house. Sounds like a healthy childhood.
@Nathan oh my god same! My dad got mad at every one of these commercials, especially the Gillette one. I'm sorry to hear that your life is as fucked up as mine, but at least we're in this together lmao.
It's incredibly ironic these people respond to "virtue signalling" by destroying their things and uploading it online as a show of moral superiority to, y'know, signal their virtue.
You reminded me of the financial trouble GoPro got into because they made their cameras so tough, people didn’t really need to buy more. They fall off of cars, planes, get shot, and they just keep on working.
@@afish1659 You do realize planned obsolescence is a feature of our world because of capitalism right? like the Soviets didn't make shit that broke because they didn't need to turn a profit. you only make shitty stuff when you need people to keep buying that stuff to make a profit.
15:13 As someone currently studying biopsychology, I would like to point out that "bird-brained" is not a very good insult, as most birds use their neurons incredibly efficiently and have surprisingly high cognitive functions, as opposed to the people boycotting a brand for tacidly endorsing a black activist.
I wish he had mentioned the "merry Christmas Starbucks" trend. Christians mad about Starbucks no longer putting "Merry Christmas" on the cups BOUGHT A STARBUCKS COFFEE but had their names written as "Merry Christmas" to stick it to them!!
(this was written early in the morning. please forgive me. I doubt that's a christian thing, since Christianity's texts teach against that sort of behavior. as a white person... I classify these people instead as upper-class white people trying to insensitively 'uphold tradition' where they have no right to. at least in my eyes, it's embarrassing and sad. about the possibility of this sad movement being used as part of the point: it is a funny anecdote, but I'm glad hbomberguy, if he heard about this, didn't use this as an example. on a more objective level: it muddies the metaphorical waters by adding in another issue. on a more subjective level: these people made Christianity out to be something it's not... and though that has been what has been done for nearly/pretty much 2,000 years... I'd rather this particular instance of people being rude and claiming it as God's will not be broadcast again and given a new scrap of legitimacy... this whole comment might not have addressed the main point of the comment above, but... I wanted to say it anyway. and I'm not looking to start fights. God help me.)
@@maggieent3215 Only just today there was a weirdo on a video losing his mind, insulting other people callng them 'socialists' because historians are now moving away from the term before-christ in time dates.
@@qus.9617 what does that have to do with socialism, even? (yep Def a weirdo) oh, what's the new standard btw? I know ad's counterpart is common era...
@@maggieent3215 I think they were just using it as example to show that christian's often do things the bible teaches against, are rude, cruel, apathetic, etc. And well, they do.
Bud Light has always been a crap beer. Tastes like ass. The fact that they don't care about getting a quality beer and have in fact moved on to even worse beers like Natty Light or Rolling Rock is hilarious.
@@nicholasszabo5954 And to makes things even funnier: Natty Light AND Rolling Rock are, get ready for this...owned by Anheuser-Busch (The same people that own Bud Light, the beer they just "Boycotted"). But I won't tell them that...
Though it may have worked for Budlight. They lost a lot of money by gambling on pissing off conservatives. Beer is different than buying a coffee machine. You need people to buy lots of beer as opposed to a few pairs of sneakers.
@JohnDoe-uf3lj I'd argue their problem is more that they backed down too quickly. The backlash for this kind of stuff tends to fizzle out, and then all you're left with is the boosted publicity. Bud Light got spooked by the initial backlash and gave up before it went away.
Man I love when brands say that maybe racism is bad, or maybe LGBTQ+ people should be treated with a shread of human decency. They are truly brave for doing so.
Hey, friend 👋 I know this was a comment from months ago, but I wanted to make a quick note as I scroll by. As an LGBT person, I just wanna mention that the "Q+" or "QIA+" at the end are not actually more inclusive, but simply redundant. There's no harm in the Q+, however, it is only necessary to include the Q for events or groups where it can mean "questioning" thus not outing an individual by them going to it. Same applies to adding the letter A for Ally. "I" refers to intersex, which can be reductionary to their own experiences, as that group is not inherently part of the LGBT community, and only are if they are trans (aka they do not identify as the gender applied to them at birth)(not that you used an I anyhow). Ultimately, all groups that should be under the acronym are subgroups of those four listed in the original acronym. Didn't mean to rant like crazy, and you obviously didn't do anything wrong, just something that's on my mind a lot. Apologies and happy holidays ✌️
@@xemhai4899 it's LGBTQ+ sir clown, or just queer. It's been like that for years, please pretend you've at least made eye contact with a gender and queer studies textbook before coming online to sound like a weird exclusionist
@@alexpfs1 Because literal white supremacist use ambiguous sign like these to signal to each other that they are fascist in a way they can use plausible deniability. Literal fascist (and I do mean fascist) used the milk emoji to recognise each others on twitter, and would make okay sign on photos too. Of course a lot of people used these as "memes" without being fascist, which is why this is such a great fascist strategy. Because it allows them to fool dumb centist/rightard like you.
Hbomberguy is extremely talented at making a relevant video dissecting a pattern in culture only for it to years later still be extremely relevant to this day
That's probably because the things he is talking about have been relevant for decades, but society as a whole doesn't give these topics nearly as much weight as they desperately need.
Also Coca Cola: "Forget that we murdered those unionists... forget that we still employ death squads... your eyes are getting heavy... you start to feel tried..."
If you're gonna hate Keurig, it should be because of all the single use plastics that end up in landfills, & their lack of effort to move to biodegradable containers.
Honestly, most of the biodegradable plastic is a scam just as well. The whole thing is just adding cheaper material to polymer composition while charging you MORE for it.
It’s sort of funny how this is still completely relevant and people on the far right still haven’t realized these childish boycotts, completely backfire and offer free advertising. Maybe next year they’ll learn to start thinking.
I mean... we haven't either? All that shit about the Harry Potter game was free advertising as well, for a brand that, until that point, was pretty much operating at a loss. Rowling is a pretty vile person and yet a bunch of people who would agree with that promoted her product. We failed the skill check.
@@johnmartinez7440 Those things can be true at the same time, no? Makes the most sense to me that way, anyway. It likely wouldn't have sold poorly without it, but it being discussed everywhere likely sold copies it otherwise wouldn't've.
As JK Rowling said about people burning her books, and George Harrison said about people burning Beatle records, “they have to buy them before they can burn them.”
I just realized that with so many people burn-protesting products, there HAS got to be at least one person who didn't have the product but REALLY wanted to make a neat video, so he/she went and bought the product just to burn it. If the number of people that make these vids gets high enough, it is inevitable that this will happen.
@@GoofRebelMusic There was at least one case where some Star Wars fanboy was so mad at TLJ that he went and bought bunch of Star Wars action figures just to destroy them. Good for Disney that reactionaries don't know how boycotts work :D
however, on the long term, their business is indeed hurt. yes, people will purchase the current products to burn them. but what about the NEXT product released? yeah nobody's gonna buy that.
@@mz0g Except that for a politicized products, people that opposed the boycotting party will make up for the loss. Not to mention that it's still a free publicity overall, political context is not universal around the world, some people just see the product and want to buy it. For a big corporation, they have the best of the best marketing analysts working for them, they have strategies that would be counter-intuitive to most people, but it works, most of the time.
@@Phoenix00Knight Have you even seen the bud light videos? I don't know what six year olds you're looking at, but Dylan didn't dress like any of the ones I've seen.
@@Cieln0va He did in a tiktok video where he prances around in a little girl dress in a hotel room saying: “I am Eloise. I am six. I’m a city child, I live at the Plaza Hotel, which is huge, and wonderful, and tres elegante, especially at Christmas time!”" "B-bUt iT waSnT a BuD LiGHt CoMmERciAl" Fuckin' creepy dude. Fuckin creepy.
F2 Li2 that’s so wrong it hurts. First of all, the “confederate” flag you’re familiar with is the Virginia Battle Flag, the Confederacy used different designs throughout its existence. The war was also about state vs federal power, not just slavery. The flag is more so about Southern pride more than anything else, the only people who I’ve seen associate it with racism have never been down south, would I be correct in that assumption?
@@Slender_Man_186 while it may represent "southern pride" to some people both in the past and now, there is no forgetting or waving away the fact that 1. it was originally used by infamous racist Robert E Lee 2. it regained popularity in the mid 1900s among people voicing support for Jim Crow laws and segregation and vocally against BIPOC and perhaps most damningly 3. the most well known group that it is deeply associated with is the KKK. people who fly or defending flying the flag without acknowledging the context in which it is and has been popular to use are part of the problem, and even if you want to celebrate southern heritage or whatever you should maybe find a better way to do it then flying a flag most commonly associated with the literal actual Ku Klux Klan. (also even though the civil war was as you say both about slavery and states rights... you're still acknowledging that a big part of it was about slavery.)
Not only could they have not destroyed the products, they could have tried to _return_ them. Which would have _actually_ maybe hurt the brand's sales. But that's far too strategic for these morons.
The point wasn't to make a statement with the return of the product, but to generate views and clicks with an overdramatic destruction of said product. Nobody is going to be clickbaited by "watch me angrily return my product at customer service"
The saddest part is that now, THREE YEARS AFTER THIS WAS POSTED, the brands sometimes don't even have to make commercials to sell themselves. They sometimes don't have to do anything except exist. Hogwarts legacy is currently the top selling pre-order on steam. Not because of an effective marketing campaign but, because of the controversy that came from J.K. Rowling. People are calling for a boycott, others are seeing this and either preordering it out of spite or because the boycott is bringing the game to their attention and they think it looks fun.
I am 100% convinced the spoiler spreading meme was seeded by the marketing department, and it's why I don't take part in it. They can't sell the game to _anyone_ who cares about trans folks, so why not sell the game to _everyone_ who doesn't? Did literally anyone actually forego buying the game just because someone spoiled the ending for them?
The worst, most egregious part, isn't even that JK Rowling is a TERF, and I'm a trans man! The story is blatantly, unapologetically antisemitic It's so obvious and on the nose, just right there for anyone to see that it's borderline Nazi Propaganda and yet people continue to buy copy after copy
Honestly I think ads are going to do a 180 and go back to "explain what your god damn product does". The best ad I've seen in ages is the ad (in French) for an app that allow you to take medical appointment online. The guy just explains to you something along the line of: "if you are ill, use this app to get a fast appointment online !". Clean, clear and no bullshit. Loved it.
Yeah, I’m sick and tired of the current advertisement strategies. the thing tho is that these corporations have literal scientific studies on advertising. So there must be something to this whole wacky shit they are doing now.
@@hickspaced2963 TBF yeah I don't know anything about it. I've opened a marketing manual once. It's quite crazy the way they see thing.I don't really remember the exact content. I just remember asking myself "is there any serious basis for any of that ? Is this really how marketers see brands?". I might also be extremely triggered by the sheer stupidity of ads because I'm autistic.
Last ad that worked on me was a magnetic hands free phone charger that Mounted to the dash in your car. All the ad did was explain how it worked and I thought “that would be super handy” and I bought it
@@PeachysMom Would it not ? By reading again my email when I said "medical appointment online" I meant "remote medical appointment via the Internet". I think this would be extra demanded in the US.
There is a brand of juice called "My Family" in Russia. It had the best ad ever: a family is having breakfast and the daughter chugs a glass of juice, slams the empty glass on the table and says "more", to which her dad replies "that was your third one, baby, you'll burst", to which the little girl replies "dad, pour some more and take a step back", prompting a hearty laugh from her mother. It's wholesome, it's memorable, almost twenty years later it still stands out as the best ad I have ever seen.
