You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] lemon11 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Here's the thing: advertisements didn't used to be nothing but stock photos of "smiling happy people." Advertisements didn't used to be only lifestyle representations of the goodthink multyculty below-replacement family. It used to be about products. You can go back to any time period and pretend to prove me wrong by showing people in lifestyle ads, but those were explicitly lifestyle ads: "flavor country" and narratives of housewives and "we've come a long way, baby." Even web ads used to be product-oriented, until the stock photo companies got organized, and every repeated domain placeholder photo eventually became a meme because it was so over-used.

They are trying to drive you away, white man. Their goal is overt replacement. They don't advertise products because they are selling a multicultural lifestyle. Stop falling for it. Stop presuming this is latent racial bias. Stop paying. Stop feeding. Stop enabling.


[–] cdglow 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Advertisements didn't used to be only lifestyle representations of the goodthink multyculty below-replacement family. It used to be about products.

Truly interesting observation. Worth thinking about.

As an occasional hobby I collect some old magazines from various decades so I want to go back and study some of the older ads. I get the impression that this did shift at some point: though I'm not sure how fast. The question is why? Are lifestyle ads more effective than normal product ads, or is there something else at play here?

For what it's worth, showing off a lifestyle ad might be more effective among women: and contrary to feminist claims otherwise, they largely dominate household spending. I bet technical ads are more effective for men, but the companies find it easier to manipulate women with pictures of happy interracial couples and the like than it is to manipulate men with factual product info.

What might have led to this shift is partially women dominating the ad agency workplace. Notice that I didn't say "entering" the workplace, but dominating. Many CEOs or high ranking people within ad agencies are women right now. Most project managers, designers, and other creatives are women. There is no doubt that women have an inordinate influence. Now, I'm not saying that many high ranking men aren't in agencies as there are, but they have to shut up about things when the women come out with their retarded ideas like "hire women, promote women, believe women, show white women dancing with smiling niggers in all of the ads, etc".

These ad agencies are the people shaping the culture, with a little (((assistance))) I'm sure. Once upon a time they were like Mad Men portrayed: right now it's much worse than you can imagine.


[–] v8rumble 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Funny story, at my last job my female Operations Manager had to constantly try and go anti to things the cuck CEO would do. She was originally from Eastern Europe and based as fuck, so she didn't buy into all the bullshit feminism stuff. They were supposed to do some "women in tech" picture day thing and she was like "this is fucking stupid, just do you damn jobs". I wish more women in business places were like her.


[–] prairie 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Also, they are selling to people who don't earn their money.