Do these corporations even know who their buyers are?

[CarrollCoRaven]

Now Miller Light is under similar attack for their feminist ad released around the same time as Bud Light's Dylan Mulvaney ad.
IMO, this is just a terrible ad for many reasons.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/miller...mpanies-broken

[darb72]

Now Miller Light is under similar attack for their feminist ad released around the same time as Bud Light's Dylan Mulvaney ad.
IMO, this is just a terrible ad for many reasons.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/miller...mpanies-broken

Eh, that one isn't nearly the same. I wouldn't even call it woke since it isn't insulting anybody. I doubt it's going to be very effective, but the message actually makes sense.

[steelerhater]

Eh, that one isn't nearly the same. I wouldn't even call it woke since it isn't insulting anybody. I doubt it's going to be very effective, but the message actually makes sense.

I agree. Not in the same ballpark. I mean, are we supposed to believe, as prior commercials suggest, that only bikini-clad hotties drink beer? At least that’s what I got out of the article.

[CarrollCoRaven]

Eh, that one isn't nearly the same. I wouldn't even call it woke since it isn't insulting anybody. I doubt it's going to be very effective, but the message actually makes sense.

Nope, not in the same ballpark, just a different ballpark. Any feminism is a joke these days when they have been silent on things like guys playing women sports, or even their lack of criticizing Dylan Mulvaney for his over the top stereotype imitation of women. If you want to stand up for women, try starting with those type issues first. The commercial appeared to me as condescending attempt to make women appear tough by constantly using the word shit. I just didn't like it.

[darb72]

Nope, not in the same ballpark, just a different ballpark. Any feminism is a joke these days when they have been silent on things like guys playing women sports, or even their lack of criticizing Dylan Mulvaney for his over the top stereotype imitation of women. If you want to stand up for women, try starting with those type issues first. The commercial appeared to me as condescending attempt to make women appear tough by constantly using the word shit. I just didn't like it.

Feminism stopped being cool after the second wave. Now it's just a bunch of psychopaths who are enraged nobody will sleep with them.

The commercial was definitely cringe, if I may borrow a popular term.

[CarrollCoRaven]

Feminism stopped being cool after the second wave. Now it's just a bunch of psychopaths who are enraged nobody will sleep with them.

The commercial was definitely cringe, if I may borrow a popular term.

Another reason to "cringe" the commercial. The woman in the commercial, a supposed comic named Ilana Glazer, is a buddy of Hillary Clinton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9VSzncPsfQ

[CarrollCoRaven]

The beginning of this you tube is hilarious. Joe Biden preparing to go out at night drinking Bud Light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVnjErOlWvk&t=201s

[blueridgemtnman]

Maybe....just maybe.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...up_149299.html

[Forgettable1]

The Miller Lite commercial is cringe because it insults men by assuming what was never true: that beer drinking men care only about the attractiveness of a woman, and now those benighted men need to be educated by a humorless scold of a comedian.

Everyone in the 80s and 90s knew that women weren't merely sex objects. That's not a newsflash. Also not a newsflash: women are sexy.

The goal is to find the right degree, time, and place to draw attention to sexiness. Since beer drinking is often associated with good times...and since the companionship of sexy women are also associated with good times, it seems reasonable to couple beer drinking with sexy women. We're not using bikini-clad Kathy Ireland to hock for prepaid mortuary services.

Food. People can enjoy the sight, smell, and taste of food without having their meal accompanied by a lesson in macronutrients, gut biomes, insulin resistance, and ketosis. Not everything must be didactic. Likewise, people can enjoy a beer and pretty women without a harridan's harangue. We're grown ups, not children who need to be told eat their vegetables.

[Forgettable1]

The danger of not knowing your customer is surely a serious danger for the particular business.

But the greater danger might, ironically enough, be knowing your customer too much.

Aside from the dangers that lurk in how you come to know more about your customer (ad tracking/spyware etc), the other danger is creating parallel economies.

Duracell for Democrats; Energizer for Republicans. Coke for D, Pepsi for R; Home Depot for D, Lowes for R.

The great benefit of free market capitalism is that you don't have to know the race, sex, religion, or politics of the person who makes, delivers, and sells the widget. What matters is that the processes of the voluntary exchange makes everyone better for it.

The incidental benefit is that while voluntarily making, selling, and buying, you may come to realize that the person at the other end of the exchange isn't quite the monster you thought him to be. By rubbing elbows you learn something.

But when politics intrudes, then you have reason to keep yourself segregated from those foul, smelly other people. Moreover, the bundle of Politics plus Product makes it easier to rationalize the purchase of inferior products. After all, you aren't buying just the product, you're buying the "Fair Trade"/"Sustainable/Our People" politics too. With that come the grifters and shysters who know they can sell you watered-down crapola. That, leads to inefficiency and a breakdown of trust.

Bottom line: build a better mousetrap, distribute more profits to the shareholders; respect your customers enough to trust them to figure out the politics.

[Greg]

The danger of not knowing your customer is surely a serious danger for the particular business.

But the greater danger might, ironically enough, be knowing your customer too much.

Aside from the dangers that lurk in how you come to know more about your customer (ad tracking/spyware etc), the other danger is creating parallel economies.

Duracell for Democrats; Energizer for Republicans. Coke for D, Pepsi for R; Home Depot for D, Lowes for R.

The great benefit of free market capitalism is that you don't have to know the race, sex, religion, or politics of the person who makes, delivers, and sells the widget. What matters is that the processes of the voluntary exchange makes everyone better for it.

The incidental benefit is that while voluntarily making, selling, and buying, you may come to realize that the person at the other end of the exchange isn't quite the monster you thought him to be. By rubbing elbows you learn something.

But when politics intrudes, then you have reason to keep yourself segregated from those foul, smelly other people. Moreover, the bundle of Politics plus Product makes it easier to rationalize the purchase of inferior products. After all, you aren't buying just the product, you're buying the "Fair Trade"/"Sustainable/Our People" politics too. With that come the grifters and shysters who know they can sell you watered-down crapola. That, leads to inefficiency and a breakdown of trust.

Bottom line: build a better mousetrap, distribute more profits to the shareholders; respect your customers enough to trust them to figure out the politics.

Dude, you are much too smart and insightful to be posting here, but I am glad you are. Good takes.

[blueridgemtnman]

Dude, you are much too smart and insightful to be posting here, but I am glad you are. Good takes.