Images that make you laugh

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The message is clearly that 'only a primitive, uncivilised savage doesn't want Van Heusen, "the world's smartest", shirts'.

Need to work on your media literacy, Loren.

Alternately, men who wear shirts want Van Heusen shirts. That means they need a man who obviously doesn't wear shirts--they can't just use a man who isn't wearing one, they need a man who clearly doesn't wear them. What other choices are there? Since it's basically a forced "choice" I'm not willing to call it racist without more data.

I've seen plenty of other ads on the same basic principle--everyone who uses <item x> wants <brand y of x>, illustrated with someone (or something) that clearly has no need of <x> as being the only one who doesn't want <brand y>.

Wow, you even make excuses for racism in the joke forum.

 

[Angry Floof]

Dat cat.

 

[bigfield]

The message is clearly that 'only a primitive, uncivilised savage doesn't want Van Heusen, "the world's smartest", shirts'.

Need to work on your media literacy, Loren.

Alternately, men who wear shirts want Van Heusen shirts. That means they need a man who obviously doesn't wear shirts--they can't just use a man who isn't wearing one, they need a man who clearly doesn't wear them. What other choices are there? Since it's basically a forced "choice" I'm not willing to call it racist without more data.

I've seen plenty of other ads on the same basic principle--everyone who uses <item x> wants <brand y of x>, illustrated with someone (or something) that clearly has no need of <x> as being the only one who doesn't want <brand y>.

You're just proving my point about your comprehension skills. When analysing a media item, you need to consider all of its elements.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Alternately, men who wear shirts want Van Heusen shirts. That means they need a man who obviously doesn't wear shirts--they can't just use a man who isn't wearing one, they need a man who clearly doesn't wear them. What other choices are there? Since it's basically a forced "choice" I'm not willing to call it racist without more data.

I've seen plenty of other ads on the same basic principle--everyone who uses <item x> wants <brand y of x>, illustrated with someone (or something) that clearly has no need of <x> as being the only one who doesn't want <brand y>.

You're just proving my point about your comprehension skills. When analysing a media item, you need to consider all of its elements.

It's suggestive of racism. Racism isn't proven, though, because they didn't really have a choice in what image to use there.

 

[daws77]

You're just proving my point about your comprehension skills. When analysing a media item, you need to consider all of its elements.

It's suggestive of racism. Racism isn't proven, though, because they didn't really have a choice in what image to use there.

Of course they did. ..epic fail.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's suggestive of racism. Racism isn't proven, though, because they didn't really have a choice in what image to use there.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. There are no iconic white men that could be presented as not preferring a button-up shirt for daily wear.

No chance of using, say, a surfer. A lifeguard.
Or a construction worker in a sleeveless T.
Tarzan.
A beatnik in a turtleneck sweater.
A Hippie in a tie-dyed T.
A weightlifter. Circus strongman. Trapeze artist in tights.

Nope. They were absolutely helpless to pick someone who wasn't white, wasn't American, wasn't visibly a member of the same civilization where such shirts might be available...

 

[daws77]

How about this :

 

[Keith&Co.]

How about this : View attachment 11905

Well, no. For the purpose of the ad, one has to tell a short, recognizable story, to give the reader a GOOD reason for the 5th man not to be terribly interested in a high-quality shirt, perhaps because of their job, or their politics, or their daily schedule.
That picture is more of a WHAT THE FUCK? Why is that man in a bikini? Or half a bikini?

 

[repoman]

 

[thebeave]

It's suggestive of racism. Racism isn't proven, though, because they didn't really have a choice in what image to use there.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. There are no iconic white men that could be presented as not preferring a button-up shirt for daily wear.

No chance of using, say, a surfer. A lifeguard.
Or a construction worker in a sleeveless T.
Tarzan.
A beatnik in a turtleneck sweater.
A Hippie in a tie-dyed T.
A weightlifter. Circus strongman. Trapeze artist in tights.

Nope. They were absolutely helpless to pick someone who wasn't white, wasn't American, wasn't visibly a member of the same civilization where such shirts might be available...

I had thought about the use of a surfer, instead of the African tribesman. Let's say we put in a dim-witted Spicoli-ish white surfer beach bum from LA instead, with the caption "Dude, even I would trade my tasty buds for a Van Huesen shirt". It would generate a chuckle or two, but the ad would soon be be forgotten. Now let's put in a dim-witted black dreadlocked Jamaican rastafarian beach bum, with the caption, "Ya mon, I would trade my ganga for a Van Huesen". The twitter outrage machine would be on fire pointing out the racism, with calls for boycotting Van Huesen and for the CEO to step down. People see the race, not the character or the context. Remember the photoshopped picture of Ellen DeGeneres riding on the back of Hussain Bolt? Instantly, the SJWs pulled out the racism card, even though Ellen and Usain were friends. Somehow, they couldn't see it for what it really was: A silly picture of a person going for a joy ride on the back of the fastest man on the planet:

http://time.com/4454779/ellen-degeneres-usain-bolt-twitter-meme/



It seems we're at a point where its extremely tricky to put white people and black people together in an ad, etc without it being dissected for secret meanings and racism "dog whistles". And if you have too many white people together in one place, that's not being inclusive and is therefore also racist. I don't envy the job of an ad writer these days.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's suggestive of racism. Racism isn't proven, though, because they didn't really have a choice in what image to use there.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. There are no iconic white men that could be presented as not preferring a button-up shirt for daily wear.

No chance of using, say, a surfer. A lifeguard.
Or a construction worker in a sleeveless T.
Tarzan.
A beatnik in a turtleneck sweater.
A Hippie in a tie-dyed T.
A weightlifter. Circus strongman. Trapeze artist in tights.

Nope. They were absolutely helpless to pick someone who wasn't white, wasn't American, wasn't visibly a member of the same civilization where such shirts might be available...

Surfer? Surfers don't always surf, they're likely to wear a shirt at other times.
Lifeguard? Same problem.
Construction worker? Same problem.
Tarzan? Fine--but copyright issues.
Beatnik? All they wear are turtlenecks?
Hippie? Likewise.
Weightlifter? Same problem as the surfer.
Circus performers? Same problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about this : View attachment 11905

Well, no. For the purpose of the ad, one has to tell a short, recognizable story, to give the reader a GOOD reason for the 5th man not to be terribly interested in a high-quality shirt, perhaps because of their job, or their politics, or their daily schedule.
That picture is more of a WHAT THE FUCK? Why is that man in a bikini? Or half a bikini?

Exactly--a GOOD reason. You just gave me a whole list that contained only one good reason and it was unusable for other reasons. You had a bunch of people that sometimes wouldn't be interested in a high quality shirt, not that never would be.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Riiiiiiiiiiight. There are no iconic white men that could be presented as not preferring a button-up shirt for daily wear.

No chance of using, say, a surfer. A lifeguard.
Or a construction worker in a sleeveless T.
Tarzan.
A beatnik in a turtleneck sweater.
A Hippie in a tie-dyed T.
A weightlifter. Circus strongman. Trapeze artist in tights.

Nope. They were absolutely helpless to pick someone who wasn't white, wasn't American, wasn't visibly a member of the same civilization where such shirts might be available...

Surfer? Surfers don't always surf,

Of course, those guys in the picture won't ALWAYS wear those shirts, so your objection is a bullshit rationale.
The ad doesn't need to sell a permanent covering, it merely needs to convey that anyone with a use for a button-up formal shirt would prefer a Van Heusen.

they're likely to wear a shirt at other times.
Lifeguard? Same problem.

And the 'same' problem is still a bullshit rationale.

Construction worker? Same problem.
Tarzan? Fine--but copyright issues.
Beatnik? All they wear are turtlenecks?

We're looking for iconic, not a survey.
Look, you're trying to defend a stereotype. You cannot do that by criticizing other stereotypes as being incompletely accurate..

ALL the ad needs is a brief message, not to stand up to logical scrutiny.

Hippie? Likewise.
Weightlifter? Same problem as the surfer.
Circus performers? Same problem.

But that's just it. It's not a problem. Not for the advert. Throw out an icon and get the point across. You're putting way too much thought into preserving your racist defense.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Exactly--a GOOD reason.

Yes. Sell to a chosen demographic that 'their' sort of men would want these shirts.

You just gave me a whole list that contained only one good reason and it was unusable for other reasons.

No, the whole list would work, but you're desperate to pretend there's just no racism in the ad.

You had a bunch of people that sometimes wouldn't be interested in a high quality shirt, not that never would be.

And that's all that's needed for this ad.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Keith&Co.]

It seems we're at a point where its extremely tricky to put white people and black people together in an ad, etc without it being dissected for secret meanings and racism "dog whistles". And if you have too many white people together in one place, that's not being inclusive and is therefore also racist. I don't envy the job of an ad writer these days.

What if one of those short-haired professionals in the ad was a black man in a Van Heusen?

And make the fifth man a rodeo clown? Cowboy hat, bandana, face paint, Western shirt, red nose...

Nothing in the ad requires 'traditional garb' or the clothes being the only thing they wear at all times.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Angry Floof]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Surfer? Surfers don't always surf,

Of course, those guys in the picture won't ALWAYS wear those shirts, so your objection is a bullshit rationale.
The ad doesn't need to sell a permanent covering, it merely needs to convey that anyone with a use for a button-up formal shirt would prefer a Van Heusen.

You are stating it right but missing the implications.

Anyone who ever would want a formal shirt is presumed to want that shirt. Thus their odd man out needs to be someone who never would wear a formal shirt.

But that's just it. It's not a problem. Not for the advert. Throw out an icon and get the point across. You're putting way too much thought into preserving your racist defense.

No, I'm taking the innocent until proven guilty approach. Nobody has come up with any other image they could have used to be someone who clearly never wears a formal shirt, thus I see a forced "choice" and thus racism isn't proven.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course, those guys in the picture won't ALWAYS wear those shirts, so your objection is a bullshit rationale.
The ad doesn't need to sell a permanent covering, it merely needs to convey that anyone with a use for a button-up formal shirt would prefer a Van Heusen.

You are stating it right but missing the implications.

Anyone who ever would want a formal shirt is presumed to want that shirt. Thus their odd man out needs to be someone who never would wear a formal shirt.

Your absolutism is a figment of your imagination.

No, I'm taking the innocent until proven guilty approach. Nobody has come up with any other image they could have used to be someone who clearly never wears a formal shirt, thus I see a forced "choice" and thus racism isn't proven.

Sure, Loren.
They can't possibly suggest that anyone would tend towards other shirts unless they would never, ever, ever, ever want any sort of shirt in any way whatsoever. That's what advertising does, throws up little cute ideas that have to last for eternity, no matter how they're looked at, in any sort of configuration, or possible need to attend a funeral.

That's what this ad is about, a life-style choice to only ever wear formal shirts. Ever. For anything.

As a form of 'tradition,' as you first framed it.

After all, it's not even remotely possible that the fifth man only dresses like that for his day job as an actor at a theme park, and wore a Van Heusen shirt to his job interview...