Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cmh6476

M&M's shoes were polarizing, so bring in Maya Rudolph

Recommended Posts

wut?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how or why I found this.  I went to twitter to find some good news on Mahomes and all I got was a chocolate update :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are probably trying to go viral with the shoes and almost certainly most people did not care.

 

The key is to ignore corporate statements like this and not to propagate the fake controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this happened over a year ago. It was about the female m&m characters getting “less sexy” shoes, right?

i had to Google it and everything that’s coming up is from Jan 2022. So they made this statement a year after the changes? I guess it lines up with the statement but yes, seems very odd and I agree with Skibum 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wiffleball said:

So, Maya Rudolph is the green one?

I have no idea wtf is happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused.  Is this good or bad?  Is this a woke thing?  It's too hard to keep track of what everyone is upset with or offended by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm confused.  Is this good or bad?  Is this a woke thing?  It's too hard to keep track of what everyone is upset with or offended by now.

Its exhausting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm confused.  Is this good or bad?  Is this a woke thing?  It's too hard to keep track of what everyone is upset with or offended by now.

It's absolutely nothing. Companies PR reps make a fake controversy so they can go viral and get free advertising. That is all it is and ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MTSkiBum said:

It's absolutely nothing. Companies PR reps make a fake controversy so they can go viral and get free advertising. That is all it is and ever was.

I remember a few weeks ago Tucker Carlson getting worked up about M&Ms for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I remember a few weeks ago Tucker Carlson getting worked up about M&Ms for some reason.

Yeah, something about them flipping the script and dedicating their packaging to women's empowerment or some such nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Skittles and Mm's get in a gang fight. Someone throws an m&m at you? Nothing. But somebody hucks a skittle hard enough and hits just the right spot, it could leave a mark.

 

Then jolly ranchers show up and say hold my beer. 🤠

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the women’s movements these days are laughable.  It literally doesn’t mean anything, because it means everything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know when I think of fun, the first name that comes to mind is Maya rudolph.

 

 

😵💫

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmh6476 said:

I have no idea how or why I found this.  I went to twitter to find some good news on Mahomes and all I got was a chocolate update :dunno:

Close but you was lookin' for a half-chocolate update.  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bert said:

Maya Rudolph? Is that Rudolph Reindeer's biotch?

Hey, she’s beloved. And half black/ half white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

Are you calling her an Oreo?

Double stuffed. See them cans ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They pulled the plug on woke cuz they didn’t want to go broke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

They are probably trying to go viral with the shoes and almost certainly most people did not care.

 

The key is to ignore corporate statements like this and not to propagate the fake controversy.

 

4 hours ago, WhiteWonder said:

I feel like this happened over a year ago. It was about the female m&m characters getting “less sexy” shoes, right?

i had to Google it and everything that’s coming up is from Jan 2022. So they made this statement a year after the changes? I guess it lines up with the statement but yes, seems very odd and I agree with Skibum 

So what you're saying is that a segment of our population has created a level of division among society to where a corporation can pander do that division to profit on it?  Yeah, that actually makes sense.  I agree.  I think there's a lot of people here who agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bert said:

Maya Rudolph? Is that Rudolph Reindeer's biotch?

They wouldn't let her play in any reindeer games.

 

Then the feds got involved and forced integration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw one of these woke commercials.  The fact that they picked the wh0re from Idiocracy to rep their product is awesome!

 

I suspect most won't get the irony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Liberals are so soft now they were offended by cartoon candy characters.  Let that sink in.  

You talking about tucker Carlson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Louie Kelcher said:

You talking about tucker Carlson?

Purple lesbian m&m to be more inclusive. 🤣 Liberals are so foking stupid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised by the quick move to unwind it. The hit to their bottom line must have been rather painful.

The problem is that they know they need to pander to this notion of “woke” but how to do it without losing money?

Gillette learned their lesson. Others have as well, still you have companies who perhaps accept the loss as cost of doing business in the market today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I am surprised by the quick move to unwind it. The hit to their bottom line must have been rather painful.

The problem is that they know they need to pander to this notion of “woke” but how to do it without losing money?

Gillette learned their lesson. Others have as well, still you have companies who perhaps accept the loss as cost of doing business in the market today.

Did m&m sales decline following Rucker Carlson crying?  Does the right do whatever thus guy says?

I had no idea any of this was going on and have a bag of m&ms on my desk right now, nor do I care if they are gay.  I have to think I'm the normal every day american who chooses to be above the fray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Louie Kelcher said:

Gillette, is that the toxic masculinity and?  The right didn't like that either?  Did the boycott work?  Data?

 

3 minutes ago, Louie Kelcher said:

Did m&m sales decline following Rucker Carlson crying?  Does the right do whatever thus guy says?

I had no idea any of this was going on and have a bag of m&ms on my desk right now, nor do I care if they are gay.  I have to think I'm the normal every day american who chooses to be above the fray.

I was unaware of this stuff until this thread, but I have been avoiding candy because I think it is not good for me.

Regarding Gillette

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gillette-ceo-losing-customers-over-metoo-campaign-is-price-worth-paying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

 

I was unaware of this stuff until this thread, but I have been avoiding candy because I think it is not good for me.

Regarding Gillette

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gillette-ceo-losing-customers-over-metoo-campaign-is-price-worth-paying

Ok, so your article supports my article that the ad campaign had very little if anything to do with revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Louie Kelcher said:

https://pguru12.medium.com/procter-gamble-three-year-after-gillettes-we-believe-ffa9c82d9772

I found this, which refutes the claim that gilettes ads have resulted in boycotts which hurt revenue.

Unless you can prove otherwise, its just more social justice crying from the right .

Two things on this. 
1) Gillette initially refuted it for a time, but has admitted it hurt them. While they have ended the campaign they stand by their position that they want to help men get better and better and who would object to that?

2) it was not their effort but instead their mismanagement of that effort that led to their loses

Tou can dislike that it happened, but maybe we can all learn from it instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Louie Kelcher said:

Ok, so your article supports my article that the ad campaign had very little if anything to do with revenue.

Yea, Gillette stood by that for a while, before they admitted it was a problem.

Rhey could have handled it all better I think, their heart was in the right place, there was nothing wrong with trying to help people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Two things on this. 
1) Gillette initially refuted it for a time, but has admitted it hurt them. While they have ended the campaign they stand by their position that they want to help men get better and better and who would object to that?

2) it was not their effort but instead their mismanagement of that effort that led to their loses

Tou can dislike that it happened, but maybe we can all learn from it instead

They never admitted it hurt them, in fact we don't know.  What we do know is that it upset a small group of customers, but they also received support from a much larger group.  Did the small group of crybabies have a larger influence on sales than the much larger group?  Doubtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Louie Kelcher said:

They never admitted it hurt them, in fact we don't know.  What we do know is that it upset a small group of customers, but they also received support from a much larger group.  Did the small group of crybabies have a larger influence on sales than the much larger group?  Doubtful.

As with any problem a univariable analysis is never true. 
Did their clumsy attempt to pander to “woke” cause their losses, not entirely. 
There were multiple factors, ones that were of course always there(competition, generational usage patterns, costs) and then this campaign as well, which did not help.

I know I stopped buying their products, never will again, and I encourage my kids to buy other brands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RLLD said:

As with any problem a univariable analysis is never true. 
Did their clumsy attempt to pander to “woke” cause their losses, not entirely. 
There were multiple factors, ones that were of course always there(competition, generational usage patterns, costs) and then this campaign as well, which did not help.

I know I stopped buying their products, never will again, and I encourage my kids to buy other brands.

I supported the ad, still do, but I did not run out and buy their products.  I generally don't let social causes change my shopping practices.  I'm too smart for that, most people are.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Louie Kelcher said:

I supported the ad, still do, but I did not run out and buy their products.  I generally don't let social causes change my shopping practices.  I'm too smart for that, most people are.

Interesting, your position would then suggest that the ad itself is worthless because smart people ignore it anyway.

I suggest that the ad does have value, can sway people and that is why it was developed.

Now that being said, I think the intent of the marketing was good, but done poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Interesting, your position would then suggest that the ad itself is worthless because smart people ignore it anyway.

I suggest that the ad does have value, can sway people and that is why it was developed.

Now that being said, I think the intent of the marketing was good, but done poorly.

From a product standpoint, I do think it was worthless.  From a social standpoint, I think it was very important to take on toxic masculinity and challenge men to be better.  It's been a personal cause of mine for many years.  However I don't think it achieved it's intent due to the backlash and the rise of toxic masculinity in recent years with the Andrew Tate and incel movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Louie Kelcher said:

From a product standpoint, I do think it was worthless.  From a social standpoint, I think it was very important to take on toxic masculinity and challenge men to be better.  It's been a personal cause of mine for many years.  However I don't think it achieved it's intent due to the backlash and the rise of toxic masculinity in recent years with the Andrew Tate and incel movements.

I think I understand your point of view more clearly now.

I am not a proponent, for now, that toxic masculinity is a problem. Though I do need to become better educated on the topic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×