40 minutes ago, Toty said:

this was a funny joke

I heard a legend a couple days ago, that if you post it six times everyone responds.

3 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

 

Did Trump do stupid things that helped him get elected?

Glad you bring up Trump, since he employed the same strategy but of course in reverse.  Virtue signal to the right, it's covered by the liberal media and it gains him popularity.  CNN is specifically to blame for the rise of Trump in 2015.   They covered his every move because it got them ratings and in return Trump catapulted to popularity. 

The difference is that the left is acutely aware of that ecosystem and they're constantly screaming that the media should stop covering Trump because they're necessary to his survival.  They've been beating that drum since day 1 of Trump's rise but CNN has paid some lip service to it but also largely ignored them because CNN sucks.  

On the flip side, the right somehow still hasn't caught on that Tucker and Hannity, etc, are absolute key to the continuation of corporate wokeness, despite the fact that this exact cycle has been ongoing for 15 years or so.  If they had a problem with woke corporate virtue signaling than all they would have to do is turn off the right wing mouth pieces and the corporate woke stuff would eventually sputter out because it would no longer be a viable marketing strategy.

But they're not gonna do that because the right thinks that the right wing media is fighting for them and their interests. 

2 hours ago, SNOORDA said:

Yeah but for a company that’s gone along so long and so long w/o using social/political gimmicks you would think this is below them. 

Why would they think it's beneath them unless it were a risk to their bottom line?  I mean, from a business standpoint, I don't see any risk in it at all.  They changed the shoes of a cartoon character.  If they hadn't put out a statement about it no one would've even noticed.

52 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Why would they think it's beneath them unless it were a risk to their bottom line?  I mean, from a business standpoint, I don't see any risk in it at all.  They changed the shoes of a cartoon character.  If they hadn't put out a statement about it no one would've even noticed.

Well it’s pandering.  And it’s kinda tacky.  But hey whatever

11 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Since when did we stop pointing out when companies do stupid things to sell their products?

 

5 hours ago, Outlaw said:

NOBODY "raged" against it.

M&M: Hey look our candies are all non-binary and gender fluid and ish.

Everyone: wtf lmao that's stupid as F.

@VanHammersly: Look how enraged everyone is!!!! This is literally the greatest marketing campaign I have ever seen. I bet M&M sales have absolutely exploded!

 

15 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

Well it’s pandering.  And it’s kinda tacky.  But hey whatever

But they're a business.  There's no reason why they would care.

9 minutes ago, Kz! said:

 

M&M: Hey look our candies are all non-binary and gender fluid and ish.

Everyone: wtf lmao that's stupid as F.

@VanHammersly: Look how enraged everyone is!!!! This is literally the greatest marketing campaign I have ever seen. I bet M&M sales have absolutely exploded!

 

  I knew when I mentioned that Tucker and Sean were key to propagating woke corporatism that you'd come in on a rampage.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

But they're a business.  There's no reason why they would care.

  I knew when I mentioned that Tucker and Sean were key to propagating woke corporatism that you'd come in on a rampage.

Vanhammersly *posts 27 times about M&Ms new ad in multiple threads*

Kz! *responds literally once*

Vanhammersly: Help! Kz is on a rampage!!!

You sir, are on fire today.  

if you're going out of your way to buy/not buy m&m's because of political reasons, you're a f'n weirdo!

 

 

Just now, Toty said:

I really think the idea that this is strictly a bottom line issue is a red herring.

It's happening across institutions, whether for-profit, public, private, or otherwise. Companies are applying demographic quotas to their boards of directors now. It's becoming a moral imperative.

I'm not talking about all of wokism.  Wokism is a religion.  But a corporate ad campaign is for profit, whether it's virtue signaling or not.  And given how the media works, the M&M's move was a smart campaign.

7 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

if you're going out of your way to buy/not buy m&m's because of political reasons, you're a f'n weirdo!

 

 

But it's completely normal if it's a box of rice!

Windmill when an M&M comes out as non-binary:

Just now, Kz! said:

Windmill when an M&M comes out as non-binary:

That looks like Beastmode, which would make those Skittles.

4 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

But they're a business.  There's no reason why they would care.

  I knew when I mentioned that Tucker and Sean were key to propagating woke corporatism that you'd come in on a rampage.

I have to be totally honestly me and my boss  Did mention how we would kill it if we incorporating a little rainbow into our logo/ work shirts. (Electrical contractor)

get that whole rich West Hollywood business 

Then we said collectively, "nah that ain’t right”

17 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

I have to be totally honestly me and my boss  Did mention how we would kill it if we incorporating a little rainbow into our logo/ work shirts. (Electrical contractor)

get that whole rich West Hollywood business 

Then we said collectively, "nah that ain’t right”

 

The progresso-fascist attack on Spotify and Joe Rogan is not going to end well for them.

4 hours ago, Boogyman said:

But it's completely normal if it's a box of rice!

Or a chicken sandwich 

Who predicted this?

35 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Who predicted this?

The facepalm emoji guy did

2 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Who predicted this?

Next up is the pregnant furry emoji.

Fatty livers to go along with the jaundice?

On 1/27/2022 at 7:19 PM, VanHammersly said:

I’ve already pointed this out on here about this story once but the point of the M&M campaign is to get people to talk about M&Ms.  I can promise you that they don’t mind if you mock them or get outraged at them, as long as your reminding people that they exist. They’re getting a lot more distance out of outrage and mockery than they are from support and they were well aware of that going into this.  They’re not woke, they’re just good at marketing (or I should say, the firm that pitched the idea to them is). 

I disagree. Companies try to virtue signal their D&I initiatives. If they just wanted to make more money and get more advertising they would utilize different marketing strategies, like they've done with limited edition flavors.

Any company who does something remotely political runs the risk of losing business. Negative press might make a certain side or faction want to stop buying your product. Yes, it might also make the side in support go buy more product to show support, or "own" the other side who are boycotting. Example Nike & Kuerig.

Some of these things are just silly, like m&m characters or Potato Head. Some are hypocritical like companies virtue signaling about equality while their products are made in sweat shops or in countries that oppress their people. 

21 hours ago, Boogyman said:

But it's completely normal if it's a box of rice!

 

12 minutes ago, Toty said:

Gilette: We make shavers. I have an idea, let's insult men! We have to be careful, though... in the commercial we have to make sure that only white men are the purveyors of toxic masculinity. We can have a person-of-color be the voice of reason, since we all know that Black and Hispanic men are much less prone to machismo and male posturing.

There's also a more positive way to highlight virtues & integrity in men if that's what they want to do. 

On 1/29/2022 at 1:38 PM, NOTW said:

I disagree. Companies try to virtue signal their D&I initiatives. If they just wanted to make more money and get more advertising they would utilize different marketing strategies, like they've done with limited edition flavors.

Any company who does something remotely political runs the risk of losing business. Negative press might make a certain side or faction want to stop buying your product. Yes, it might also make the side in support go buy more product to show support, or "own" the other side who are boycotting. Example Nike & Kuerig.

Some of these things are just silly, like m&m characters or Potato Head. Some are hypocritical like companies virtue signaling about equality while their products are made in sweat shops or in countries that oppress their people. 

Surely you don't think companies get the same reach out of a limited edition flavor as they do out of a woke controversy, do you?  It's not even remotely comparable.  We're a week out and people are still talking about it.  There's no chance some kind of flavor change would get a mention anywhere longer than a few hours after an announcement.  Controversy has legs.  

And the beauty of this campaign is that it's not even really controversial.  It just plays into a narrative without putting any real teeth into it.  They changed the shoes and pants of a cartoon M&M and included some vague statements about how the candy would treat each other.  That's essentially nothing.  But they knew it would push certain buttons and create right wing rants and memes and gain them far more traction than it deserved.

And to your point about losing business, the real threat there is minimal and the added free advertising trumps any real chance of that happening.  Because in the end, most people aren't particularly passionate about politics, but they like M&Ms because they're delicious.

On 1/28/2022 at 8:27 PM, SB52 said:

The progresso-fascist attack on Spotify and Joe Rogan is not going to end well for them.

You mean the business decisions made by artists? Is that the fascist attack you mean? Artists making  a free choice?

That is your idea of fascism?

Did any of you stay awake during history classes?