BrewDog: yet another hip company using 'rebel' language to sell its stuff

[Poot]

i think you could probably argue that it's irrelevant whether the marketing was misogynistic or not, the point is is that the marketing is successful

You mean profitable. It certainly succeeded in being misogynistic.

 

[ddraig]

You could argue all sorts if the response results in a gleeful 'gotcha' or 'sticking it to the libs/feminists/people who give a shit' for your jollies, sad tho tbf!

 

[Spymaster]

I agree their marketing is successful, but it's built on sexism and misogyny. Is that OK teuchter and Spymaster?

Also, are Spymaster teuchter and dessiato saying that anything goes in marketing so long as it's successful?

Where does the line get drawn - is white supremacy ok? Racism? Slavery? Homophobia? Transphobia? Disablism? What about Nazi ideology?

For the record. I accept that BD's marketing may have been profitable. But - for me at least - profitable ≠ successful.

So I repeat EQ's question (with that semantic caveat).

Ok, where the line gets drawn is precisely the issue.

Different people have different ideas on what constitutes a lot of "isms", or at least how serious infractions of them are. Whilst we would all agree that certain terms and tropes are unnacceptable, the agreement seperates as you get further down the scale. Also, whether or not firms should be sanctioned for such advertising or imagery will be similarly subjective. Fwiw, I think BD's use of those half naked punk women was pretty tacky. Should it be banned? Probably not. There'll be other people who think it's great. Same with "Growler". Many posters here got up in arms about it. Many other people couldn't care less and at least one woman on this website found it "clever".

If everyone agreed where these boundaries should be drawn there'd be no need for complaints organisations, or at least every complaint made would be upheld/rejected. I assume equationgirl , that you have made a complaint to the ASA about "growler". What was their response?

 

[equationgirl]

i think you could probably argue that it's irrelevant whether the marketing was misogynistic or not, the point is is that the marketing is successful

Misogyny is never irrelevant.

 

[Poot]

Ok, where the line gets drawn is the issue.

Different people have different ideas on what constitutes a lot of "isms", or at least how serious infraction of them are. Whilst we would all agree that certain terms and tropes would be unnacceptable, the agreement seperates as you get further down the scale. Also, whether or not firms should be sanctioned for such advertising or imagery will be similarly subjective. Fwiw, I think BD's use of those half naked punk women was pretty tacky. Should it be banned? Probably not. There'll be other people who think it's great. Same with "Growler". Many posters here got up in arms about it. Many other people couldn't care less and at least one woman on this website found it "clever".

If everyone agreed where these boundaries should be drawn there'd be no need for complaints organisations, or at least every complaint made would be upheld/rejected. I assume equationgirl , that you have made a complaint to the ASA about "growler". What was their response?

I think Jim Davidson's quite clever. I also think lots of other things about him, too. None of them are good.

 

[equationgirl]

What are you on about? Are you actually, seriously claiming not to know the answer to this question?

Are you? Because some people have argued that using misogyny is a 'genius marketing campaign' on this thread, so they are clearly saying it's ok to use misogyny in marketing.

So I am asking where the line is - how far do they go with their marketing strategies, because if it's ok to target women, what other protected characteristics are ripe for exploitation?

 

[hitmouse]

i think you could probably argue that it's irrelevant whether the marketing was misogynistic or not, the point is is that the marketing is successful

I am starting to think that maybe different people disagree on what the point is?

 

[Spymaster]

I think Jim Davidson's quite clever. I also think lots of other things about him, too. None of them are good.

I agree with you. Others won't.

 

[xenon]

I shouldn't read this at work. I wwanna distrobute a few pints of non BD beer down my neck...

 

[equationgirl]

No, I haven't yet made a complaint to the ASA Spymaster I have had a lot going on in my personal life hat I am having to deal with, and 'growler' was not part of an ad campaign per se, so they may respond it does not come under their purview.

 

[equationgirl]

I shouldn't read this at work. I wwanna distrobute a few pints of non BD beer down my neck...

Am not at work, do not drink, and still want something alcoholic to deal with this thread.

 

[Spymaster]

Are you? Because some people have argued that using misogyny is a 'genius marketing campaign' on this thread, so they are clearly saying it's ok to use misogyny in marketing.

They haven't. They've argued that what you consider misogynistic, isn't misogynistic to the extent that it particularly concerns them.

They've disagreed with your version of misogyny.

 

[xenon]

i think you could probably argue that it's irrelevant whether the marketing was misogynistic or not, the point is is that the marketing is successful

Why would you argue that, given this isn't a thread about the effectiveness of marketing strategies. Have you got shared in BrewDog as well?

 

[equationgirl]

They haven't. They've argued that what you consider misogynistic, isn't misogynistic to the extent that it particularly concerns them.

They've disagreed with your version of misogyny.

Woman: that's misogynistic, I'm offended
Men: don't be silly dear, it's not misogynistic, it's just advertising

Black man : that advert is racist, I find it offensive
White man: don't be silly my dear chap, that's not racist it's just advertising

The people without the protected characteristics no longer get to tell those with the protected characteristics what is and isn't offensive to them.

 

[chilango]

I'm not interested in getting BrewDog's adverts 'banned'. I don't particularly advocate that kind of top down intervention.

I am interested however in expressing my view that BrewDog are sexist dickwads and that those who defend them risk being tarred by the same brush.

 

[Spymaster]

Woman: that's misogynistic, I'm offended
Men: don't be silly dear, it's not misogynistic, it's just advertising

Black man : that advert is racist, I find it offensive
White man: don't be silly my dear chap, that's not racist it's just advertising

The people without the protected characteristics no longer get to tell those with the protected characteristics what is and isn't offensive to them.

You can be as offended as you like, by whatever you like. That doesn't mean that others can't consider that unreasonable.

 

[chilango]

The other question that emerges for me from Spymaster's latest argument is that this position of "not everyone agrees, so do/say nothing" is basically just washing your hands of any personal responsibility towards society. It's very Thatcherite at its core if you ask me.

 

[equationgirl]

You can be as offended as you like, by whatever you like. That doesn't mean that others can't consider that unreasonable.

Woman complains about misogyny.
Men: well that's an unreasonable position to take.

 

[Spymaster]

The other question that emerges for me from Spymaster's latest argument is that this position of "not everyone agrees, so do/say nothing" is basically just washing your hands of any personal responsibility towards society. It's very Thatcherite at its core if you ask me.

Lol @ "latest argument". It's only changed now because you've upped your game a bit and actually put one together that makes a bit of sense.

Again, nobody is saying do/say nothing. Just be aware that people will disagree with you.

 

[teuchter]

Are you? Because some people have argued that using misogyny is a 'genius marketing campaign' on this thread, so they are clearly saying it's ok to use misogyny in marketing.

So I am asking where the line is - how far do they go with their marketing strategies, because if it's ok to target women, what other protected characteristics are ripe for exploitation?

You were asking if I and others think "anything goes in marketing so long as it's successful".

Well, of course it doesn't. What an idiotic question.

 

[chilango]

Lol @ "latest argument". It's only changed now because you've upped your game a bit and actually put one together that makes a bit of sense.

Again, nobody is saying do/say nothing. Just be aware that people will disagree with you.

I'm acutely aware that people disagree with me.

 

[equationgirl]

You were asking if I and others think "anything goes in marketing so long as it's successful".

Well, of course it doesn't. What an idiotic question.

So misogyny is ok but all the other things I listed are not? Do explain why

 

[teuchter]

given this isn't a thread about the effectiveness of marketing strategies.

You've not read the thread title then.

 

[teuchter]

So misogyny is ok but all the other things I listed are not? Do explain why

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-so-what-youre-saying-is-game.377197/

 

[Spymaster]

Woman complains about misogyny.
Men: well that's an unreasonable position to take.

Anyone is absolutely entitled to consider anyone else's position on anything unreasonable, regardless of their sex/gender.

 

[chilango]

Anyone is absolutely entitled to consider anyone else's position on anything unreasonable regardless of their sex/gender.

"No, your position is unreasonable" etc. ad infitum

 

[equationgirl]

Anyone is absolutely entitled to consider anyone else's position on anything unreasonable, regardless of their sex/gender.

You don't seem to think misogyny is unreasonable though

 

[hitmouse]

i think you could probably argue that it's irrelevant whether the marketing was misogynistic or not, the point is is that the marketing is successful

You were asking if I and others think "anything goes in marketing so long as it's successful".

Well, of course it doesn't. What an idiotic question.

I think one of you needs to have a word with the other.

 

[Spymaster]

You don't seem to think misogyny is unreasonable though

I just don't agree that everything you consider to be misogyny, is misogyny; or IF it is, some of it is not the kind of misogyny that I care about.

We just draw the line in different places.

 

[chilango]

not the kind of misogyny that I care about.