Originally posted by
Honestly, I've seen and heard way worse advertising. What it sounds like is that Gamestop is trying to sell this game to a particular audience- male, heterosexual gamers that have girlfriends that like flowers. That's what advertising does-
Honestly, I've seen and heard way worse advertising. What it sounds like is that Gamestop is trying to sell this game to a particular audience- male, heterosexual gamers that have girlfriends that like flowers. That's what advertising does- it selects a small portion of their buyers so they can feel included and are inclined to buy. If the company tried to appeal to everyone's tastes, it would be a marketing failure- a business cannot make everyone happy in one shot. It just doesn't work
They have to know that about half of their customer base is female anyway, and I don't think they're trying to purposely isolate those customers.
I personally think it's a cute idea, and it is helping financially strapped gamers buy something nice for the hunnies. The wording was done ... well, not great, but the idea was nice.
If you really have an issue with it, write a letter why you're boycotting the company, and maybe have a couple people complain as well. There's no point complaining about an email on sex toy blog, because they're not going to know anything about it.
Just my two cents.
You first paragraph. The way worse argument is a form of minimizing and derailing, I really don't care if there is worse or better stuff out there that has nothing to do with the example in question. I'm I supposed to be grading everything on a curve?
The second half misses the point entirely no one is saying an add can't have a target audience, what they are saying is that they are targeting that audience using sexism and stereotypes.
Your second paragraphs weather or not it done purposefully is irreverent, it does that is the point. Sexism does not require intent, stereotyping does not require intent, cognitive biases do not require intent.
"and it is helping financially strapped gamers buy something nice for the hunnies."
No, it not it convincing you to buy a game nothing more, nothing less. They idea they are "helping" you is illusory it is the great lie of marketing. You before the purchase of the game had greater power to buy something nice for you hunnie then you did afterwards.
Let me put it to you this way I recently order a sex toy for $20 off would you say that is EF therefore helping me pay off my student loans? The principle is the same by offering that deal I do have more resources to spend then if I had purchased it at full price. However, it clear that this isn't helping me pay off my student loans, it is still a net hindrance as putting all my money in to them would pay it off even faster.
The irony are that by making the offer less objectively helpful is how the illusion of being "helpful" is created. 20 more dollar in the bank is more helpful to buy stuff for Valentine's (or pay off loans) then a coupon for ten dollars off at one specific retailer. It only by limiting our choices do we find one "helpful" and the other not. It a psychological trick and a smart one.... and that it works even in a thread that is basically asking for critical thinking is kind of scary.