Why? What kind of "attention" do you think they "deserve"?
-
Features
Peloton exercise bike ad mocked as being 'sexist' and 'dystopian'
- Thread starter ruby sparks
- Start date
Why? What kind of "attention" do you think they "deserve"?
ruby sparks
Contributor
Well, valid, reasonable, proportionate criticism, I guess, for starters. I can’t say whether I’d support controls or curation, because I’d have to see exactly how potentially unbenign the actual material was. I would generally not be in favour of bans, but there could be cases, perhaps. I think the issues would have to be pretty serious though. One can imagine ads which could be explicitly, strongly offensive or that potentially stirred up hate or prejudice, for example. In principle, I don’t think I’d support giving advertisers carte blanche to just put into their ads whatever they wanted, with no reasonable limits.
I’m fine with reasonable standards and controls, in principle, with appropriate justifications, as opposed to allowing a commercial free for all.
I admit it is easier to think of potential examples away from gender politics though. Anti-semitism springs to mind for example.
I’m fine with reasonable standards and controls, in principle, with appropriate justifications, as opposed to allowing a commercial free for all.
I admit it is easier to think of potential examples away from gender politics though. Anti-semitism springs to mind for example.
Last edited:
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
All the exercise ads are essentially sexist. All advertising is sexists. It creates stereotypes and makes you want to be like the image.
Some exercise ads and infomercials are directed at men. Others at women. It is obvious.
Some exercise ads and infomercials are directed at men. Others at women. It is obvious.
repoman
Contributor
I don't like banning except for more extreme content, but speaking of clichés, now commercials have swung anti white male by default because they have stopped being racist and sexist. So while this may have been positive in goal the lopsidedness is not good. Some randomness in cool guy and loser geek guy in the commercial would make it more interesting.
I don't fully agree with the preface of this video but the commercials themselves say a lot.
One major counter example from just before social media blew up (so no risk of massive blowback) were two viagra commercials. One with a white guy having anxiety about being bested by a black guy and the other with an Asian guy worried about sexual competition from a white guy.
Can't find the commercials now, but this is a description
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Viagra_Ad_Venture.html?id=6iCS2pOFxJQC
Last edited:
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,205
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
All this concern trolling over "freedom of speech" and slippery slopes over moderation.
Last I knew Germany was not in fact a fascist hellhole for having laws against calling for a fascist hellhole.
The slope is not slippery when the position you stop on is still ethical and identifiable. Hate speech isn't free speech. Inciting violence isn't free speech. Calling for ethnonationalism can just as easily not be free speech, is not in any way already, in some countries.
This wasn't that. A shitty ad, perhaps, but nothing warenting censure.
But let's not play dumb and pretend that actually moderating speech in sensible ways necessarily leads to turning into China.
Last I knew Germany was not in fact a fascist hellhole for having laws against calling for a fascist hellhole.
The slope is not slippery when the position you stop on is still ethical and identifiable. Hate speech isn't free speech. Inciting violence isn't free speech. Calling for ethnonationalism can just as easily not be free speech, is not in any way already, in some countries.
This wasn't that. A shitty ad, perhaps, but nothing warenting censure.
But let's not play dumb and pretend that actually moderating speech in sensible ways necessarily leads to turning into China.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I do agree with you in principle. That said, it will always be possible to find examples to support this or that thesis, and I haven't done or found a comprehensive survey, but I admit I would be very surprised if, overall, loser geek white guy has yet overtaken cool white guy, or that men are disproportionately featured negatively compared to women, or white people compared to non-white people, or cis or hetero people compared to other genders and sexualities
But if you wanted, for whatever reason, to lampoon or otherwise negatively portray someone in an ad, my guess is that all other things being equal it would be easier, in 'western' society, to avoid criticism nowadays by choosing a straight white man. But I myself have not yet noticed an overall pattern that would concern me in this regard. So if I see an ad where straight white man gets a bad deal, I generally think, well that's ok, it's a correction to a pattern that has gone before. If it started to become anything resembling a norm, I'd be a bit less easy about it maybe.
I have just noticed that I used the word straight to describe heterosexuality. I guess it's not really a very neutral term.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
I think this is true, but ads can also portray, or have in them (perhaps not as the main focus) roles and stereotypes that are....slightly problematic at least, in the mild cases......and also not what the viewers want or want to be. Men surely do not want to be or be seen as bad at parenting.
Although in saying that.......lol, there is the old adage, surely beloved of scoundrels only, that as a husband or male parent, if you do something well or properly, something that is traditionally seen as a woman's (domestic) role, you will only get asked or be expected to do it again and regularly.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
The more I look at the OP ad, I admit I do start to see a few potentially iffy things. Perhaps my initial view was formed by a reaction to the over the top criticisms and maybe there are more minor ones that could be made.
Again, whether an individual ad in isolation (as opposed to a potentially dubious pattern being evident in ads by a certain manufacturer) should be taken to task, I'm not sure, especially when the objectionable elements in an ad are minor or mild.
I'd be happy with the ad being deconstructed, including criticisms, but if an over-reaction leads to financial losses of several million pounds (possibly more) I think it's a bit....much. Although the point has been made by another poster that the loss may be temporary and the manufacturer may even gain in the long run, under the 'there's no such thing as bad publicity ' rule.
And the male actor getting online abuse seems very unfortunate, and would surely be non-trivial for him.
All in all I'd still say this was woke going too far.
Again, whether an individual ad in isolation (as opposed to a potentially dubious pattern being evident in ads by a certain manufacturer) should be taken to task, I'm not sure, especially when the objectionable elements in an ad are minor or mild.
I'd be happy with the ad being deconstructed, including criticisms, but if an over-reaction leads to financial losses of several million pounds (possibly more) I think it's a bit....much. Although the point has been made by another poster that the loss may be temporary and the manufacturer may even gain in the long run, under the 'there's no such thing as bad publicity ' rule.
And the male actor getting online abuse seems very unfortunate, and would surely be non-trivial for him.
All in all I'd still say this was woke going too far.
ruby sparks
Contributor
In some ways, I would not like to have the UK ASA's (Advertising Standards Authority's) task of making the calls as to when to apply controls, or even advice. The remit might be fairly clear, in this specific case to limit the amount of sexism in advertising (they have other policies for other areas) but the implementation must be very complicated, and they would be walking a very fine line and could take flak from all sides.
In the case of the two banned ads posted here, it seems they might have taken the route of being even-handed, by banning both simultaneously. That's one way to avoid criticism of being non-impartial.
But I wonder how they gauge the strength their responses, in either direction. If I had to guess, and it's only partly a guess, I'd say that counting the number of complaints and objections might be their meter. It's true that the number of complaints is cited by the ASA when they explain their reasonings. Which in some ways, if my guess is right, would be quite a good operating protocol, but, if the popular zeitgeist is edging towards generally over-reacting to stuff, using numbers of complaints as a guide could start to resemble a bit of a witch hunt. Albeit the ASA would make the final judgement, but it might be naive to think they are immune to the public mood and pressure. In other words, if a sufficient or significant number of people over-react, so may the ASA.
And then there is the question of whether portraying traditional gender roles is of itself sexist, or merely...portraying traditional gender roles. As someone who likes to think of himself as a progressive, I'm definitely not a fan of traditional gender roles, but I understand that many people actually like them.
In the case of the two banned ads posted here, it seems they might have taken the route of being even-handed, by banning both simultaneously. That's one way to avoid criticism of being non-impartial.
But I wonder how they gauge the strength their responses, in either direction. If I had to guess, and it's only partly a guess, I'd say that counting the number of complaints and objections might be their meter. It's true that the number of complaints is cited by the ASA when they explain their reasonings. Which in some ways, if my guess is right, would be quite a good operating protocol, but, if the popular zeitgeist is edging towards generally over-reacting to stuff, using numbers of complaints as a guide could start to resemble a bit of a witch hunt. Albeit the ASA would make the final judgement, but it might be naive to think they are immune to the public mood and pressure. In other words, if a sufficient or significant number of people over-react, so may the ASA.
And then there is the question of whether portraying traditional gender roles is of itself sexist, or merely...portraying traditional gender roles. As someone who likes to think of himself as a progressive, I'm definitely not a fan of traditional gender roles, but I understand that many people actually like them.
Last edited:
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,412
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Advertising is about getting people to want to buy your stuff. There are a couple of angles to take with the Peloton trainer.
1) Active cyclist stuck indoors because it is winter. Husband buys peloton trainer. Yippee! But this doesn't speak to many actual people.
2) Active person doesn't have time to go to a gym. Husband buys peloton trainer. Yippee! Speaks to more people, but $2,500 for indoor equipment when you can get a relative cheap bike for $300 and a mag wheel resistance trainer for another hundred or so, seems quite a bit pricey. Also, the workout on a spinner isn't as complete as say an elliptical.
3) Random person that doesn't cycle is given a Peloton trainer and the gift results in her completely changing who she is as a person at the metaphysical level. Way to go gift giver.
The commercial is aimed at people who want to spend $2,500 on a towel rack with a slight chance of religious enlightenment. Which again is a big source of the stupidity.
Yes, people on Twitter got upset. People on Twitter get upset all the time, often over dumb things. Anyone remember when Netflix up'd their monthly fee by a buck? It seems that the woke of the woke want to get upset over other people getting upset. Poetry aside, it seems quite dumb.
1) Active cyclist stuck indoors because it is winter. Husband buys peloton trainer. Yippee! But this doesn't speak to many actual people.
2) Active person doesn't have time to go to a gym. Husband buys peloton trainer. Yippee! Speaks to more people, but $2,500 for indoor equipment when you can get a relative cheap bike for $300 and a mag wheel resistance trainer for another hundred or so, seems quite a bit pricey. Also, the workout on a spinner isn't as complete as say an elliptical.
3) Random person that doesn't cycle is given a Peloton trainer and the gift results in her completely changing who she is as a person at the metaphysical level. Way to go gift giver.
The commercial is aimed at people who want to spend $2,500 on a towel rack with a slight chance of religious enlightenment. Which again is a big source of the stupidity.
Yes, people on Twitter got upset. People on Twitter get upset all the time, often over dumb things. Anyone remember when Netflix up'd their monthly fee by a buck? It seems that the woke of the woke want to get upset over other people getting upset. Poetry aside, it seems quite dumb.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Exercising is not simply about losing weight. I've seen that ad multiple times and it never occurred to me that losing weight was her or her husband's goal. Exercise can just be about feeling good, feeling stronger. So, the notion the husband is saying "Hey, lose a few pounds." is over-reach.
That said, I thought the ad lame, had a weird emotional tone, and when she get's all excited b/c the virtual instructor says her name, I thought "What a moron."
As for the stock, it isn't just that ad. Peleton has massively increased its TV ads in the last couple weeks, especially on the sports channels I watch. The stock drop may have more to do with a failure to see a sales increase despite this big ad push.
That said, I thought the ad lame, had a weird emotional tone, and when she get's all excited b/c the virtual instructor says her name, I thought "What a moron."
As for the stock, it isn't just that ad. Peleton has massively increased its TV ads in the last couple weeks, especially on the sports channels I watch. The stock drop may have more to do with a failure to see a sales increase despite this big ad push.
The ASA banned a KFC ad because it said "what the cluck". Warning NSFW if the word 'cluck' is just too much for your office to bear.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/bus...s/news-story/ce7222e8a6648510ce34e8eca25e5338
A KFC advert has been banned for using a pun that sounded too much like a swear word.
Experts today slammed the advertising watchdog for not getting the joke.
KFC argued that the phrase was a way to “visually represent the sound of a chicken”.
But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled the ad could cause “serious and widespread offence” after getting 40 complaints – and it has banned it from appearing again.
It said “what the cluck” sounded too much like “what the f**k”.
The adverts appeared on bus stops as well as in The Sun and Metro newspapers.
The ASA said KFC was “irresponsible” for placing the ads where children could see them.
It also warned the fast-food chain to avoid alluding to expletives in future campaigns.
“As adults we can see the funny side of an ad that says ‘what the cluck’, and it’s hard to see any offence in something that is clearly a joke and a play on words,” Sarah Vizard, news editor at industry publication MarketingWeek, told The Sun.
Let's look at this 30 second video objectively.
A young woman, who appears by all objective standards to be physically fit, approaches this exercise machine with obvious trepidation. Why is an exercise machine so intimidating?
This is because it's not an exercise machine. It's a sex toy, cleverly disguised as an exercise machine. So, in the manner of 19th century garment workers who spent ten hour days at their treadle sewing machines, the woman who has no need to increase her daily caloric burn, spends her free time watching her knees go up and down.
The expression on her face and the heartfelt "Thank you," at the end, says it all. I won't speculate what her husband thinks he is getting out of this deal.
A young woman, who appears by all objective standards to be physically fit, approaches this exercise machine with obvious trepidation. Why is an exercise machine so intimidating?
This is because it's not an exercise machine. It's a sex toy, cleverly disguised as an exercise machine. So, in the manner of 19th century garment workers who spent ten hour days at their treadle sewing machines, the woman who has no need to increase her daily caloric burn, spends her free time watching her knees go up and down.
The expression on her face and the heartfelt "Thank you," at the end, says it all. I won't speculate what her husband thinks he is getting out of this deal.
ruby sparks
Contributor
A thought-provoking perspective from leftfield, as ever, bronzeage. 
I will just remind you that sometimes,a cigar an exercise machine is just an exercise machine, even if, in advertising, the odds of that might be slightly low.
I will just remind you that sometimes,
commercial released
3 people get offended
social media magnifies outrage
stock drops
millions of people lose value in their financial portfolios
I don't think you have to have stock in Peloton to have an opinon on this, or even claim victimhood (Which I don't see anyone actually doing). Anyone that holds stock in any company should be concerned about the tyranny of the extremely small but extremely loud and manipulative.
thebeave
Contributor
Good news! The woman in the ad left that patriarchal body shaming scumbag of a husband and has a new, "safe" life drinking heavily with her girlfriends. 
Just goes to show that when life hands you lemons...make lemonade (with a splash of gin, of course!).
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2t7lknrK28[/YOUTUBE]
Just goes to show that when life hands you lemons...make lemonade (with a splash of gin, of course!).[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2t7lknrK28[/YOUTUBE]
repoman
Contributor
Pretty sure that drinking alcohol is forbidden on TV commercials, I guess that this allowed on the internet.
Oh, guess I was kind of wrong. It is allowed by law and FCC policy, but the broadcasters have soft control of not allowing it. Probably they don't want an overcorrection of congress or the FCC banning the commercials after looks of drinking in them.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/20/heineken/neil-patrick-harris-heineken-ad-we-cant-drink-tv/
Oh, guess I was kind of wrong. It is allowed by law and FCC policy, but the broadcasters have soft control of not allowing it. Probably they don't want an overcorrection of congress or the FCC banning the commercials after looks of drinking in them.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/20/heineken/neil-patrick-harris-heineken-ad-we-cant-drink-tv/
Lesbian feminist writing for The Guardian attacks the male actor for being concerned about his reputation. Quelle surprise.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...o-prove-hes-not-sexist-misses-the-whole-point
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...o-prove-hes-not-sexist-misses-the-whole-point
laughing dog
Contributor
Actually, she is right - next week, no one will give a rats ass. I know I would not recognize that actor, even the day after seeing the ad.
ruby sparks
Contributor
That’s a terrible piece, in my opinion, and just contributes to the unnecessary over-reaction.
In fact, the writer is additionally over-reacting to what the male actor said in his interview, imo.