Nivea stood up to the gay mafia by declining a pro-homo ad in a call with their long-time ad agency -- this was the thanks they got.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

@webofslime could you let me know how this one does on the feed?

I have some suspicions that the keyword that really attracted reports on the other one was Peloton. Wanted to test with Nivea.

link

[–] • 1 pt

Sure enough, it got a downvote and looking at other Nivea posts, where it is in the title, it also seems likely to get downvoted.

Seems like you might be onto something.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

The relationship between these huge companies and their advertisers seems a little strange.

Nivea, for example, turns down an ad made by FCB on a private call. Allegedly, the wording was "we don't do gay" and that's apparently homophobic which is bad and there was a gay man on the call which apparently makes it worse somehow -- but none of that matters. FCB then goes to the press and smears their client for being homophobic.

In what world does a company, let along a MARKETER, think it's good for one's image to attack their own client in the press? For simply refusing to run the ad the way they dictated? What a huge flex of power. My conclusion after reading about that is that these ad companies actually have their clients by the balls.

It wouldn't be outrageous to think that online astroturfing is just a part of marketing these days. And maybe the people who do astroturfing can direct it to influence brands positively or negatively. Maybe these PR/marketing/astroturfers even have relationships with people in media (or at the very least know how to manipulate those people). That would certainly explain the preponderance of certain themes you see again and again in advertising campaigns. If the 'client' says no, just point to the refusal as an attack against a protected class under the civil rights acts and turn the machine on them as punishment.

A similar example, but not advertising:

John Schnatter of Papa John's was working with a PR firm to improve his image after making some unpopular, political-sounding statements that drew some heat. On the (private) call, Schnatter, the client, said something along the lines of 'Oh how bad could this really be? Colonel Sanders said nigger and they still sell chicken.' Apparently, this is also a bad thing to say because saying nigger in any context is racist.

Wouldn't you know, this PR firm goes to the media and smears their client for saying a bad thing on a private call. Their client who hired them to help improve their public image. Would you want to hire this PR firm to help you after hearing about this?

Now Peloton, they got away with making a few monoracial family ads. I'm talking white mom, white dad, white kids, all in one storyline. As hard as that is to believe, they actually got away with that. (Their ad firm is Mekanism). Recently they've changed to multiracial families or just monoracial black families. But given this controversy over promoting their exercise equipment as a way for women to stay fit, I'd say they're still on thin ice.

I would also keep an eye on Mint Mobile, as they have misbehaved egregiously in the past. The worst offending ad, which portrayed a multigenerational white family having more kids, is completely taken off YouTube and no longer able to be found anywhere, so I'm guessing they heeded the warnings and fell into step. They also have a lot more racemixing in their ads whereas before they were on my radar as a monoracial family advertiser.

edit:

Sorry, I am thinking of Credit Karma as the company that had to pull their white family ad and take it off Youtube. Mint Mobile is another offender, having run monoracial families in ads before, but not quite as bad. Still, both are interesting cases.

The relationship between these huge companies and their advertisers seems a little strange. Nivea, for example, turns down an ad made by FCB on a private call. [Allegedly, the wording was "we don't do gay" and that's apparently homophobic which is bad and there was a gay man on the call which apparently makes it worse somehow -- but none of that matters.](#spoiler) FCB then goes to the press and smears *their client* for being homophobic. In what world does a company, let along a MARKETER, think it's good for one's image to attack their own client in the press? For simply refusing to run the ad the way they dictated? What a huge flex of power. My conclusion after reading about that is that these ad companies actually have their clients by the balls. It wouldn't be outrageous to think that online astroturfing is just a part of marketing these days. And maybe the people who do astroturfing can direct it to influence brands positively or negatively. Maybe these PR/marketing/astroturfers even have relationships with people in media (or at the very least know how to manipulate those people). That would certainly explain the preponderance of certain themes you see again and again in advertising campaigns. If the 'client' says no, just point to the refusal as an attack against a protected class under the civil rights acts and turn the machine on them as punishment. A similar example, but not advertising: John Schnatter of Papa John's was working with a PR firm to improve his image after making some unpopular, political-sounding statements that drew some heat. On the (private) call, Schnatter, *the client*, said something along the lines of 'Oh how bad could this really be? Colonel Sanders said nigger and they still sell chicken.' Apparently, this is also a bad thing to say because saying nigger in any context is racist. Wouldn't you know, this PR firm goes to the media and smears *their client* for saying a bad thing on a private call. *Their client who hired them to help improve their public image.* Would you want to hire this PR firm to help you after hearing about this? Now Peloton, they got away with making a few monoracial family ads. I'm talking white mom, white dad, white kids, all in one storyline. As hard as that is to believe, they actually got away with that. (Their ad firm is Mekanism). Recently they've changed to multiracial families or just monoracial black families. But given this controversy over promoting their exercise equipment as a way for women to stay fit, I'd say they're still on thin ice. I would also keep an eye on Mint Mobile, ~~as they have misbehaved egregiously in the past. The worst offending ad, which portrayed a multigenerational white family having more kids, is completely taken off YouTube and no longer able to be found anywhere, so I'm guessing they heeded the warnings and fell into step.~~ They also have a lot more racemixing in their ads whereas before they were on my radar as a monoracial family advertiser. edit: Sorry, I am thinking of Credit Karma as the company that had to pull their white family ad and take it off Youtube. Mint Mobile is another offender, having run monoracial families in ads before, but not quite as bad. Still, both are interesting cases.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Indeed, a PR firm works for a conglomerate where everyone has to get on board so they can correlate the message across them. When the PR firm is run by the Cabal, they are always going to prioritize pro-cabal propaganda over actually advertising anything. Advertisements have become a vehicle for propaganda more so than they are trying to sell you something. In general, advertising is way less effective as a selling tool than it is as a propaganda tool.

parent
link