liwott

The one example I was commenting about is the tyre example. They sold more tyres to women after dropping the sexy girl on the ad. How much of a stretch is it to assume that these women were not the sexy ad’s target audience because women used to be less (socially allowed to get) interested in cars?

Ok I realise that I did not put the previous comment in the friendliest form, sorry about that !

Your point is that the marketing choice of using beautiful women is dictated by the sellers’ preferences rather that the buyers’ one. In the apparent absence of evidence to support either hypothesis, you are willing to favor the former one.

What I haven’t said explicitly yet is that there is one argument that makes me find the latter one more likely in the absence of further evidence : the businesses that make their marketing choices based on customers’ preferences will tend to survive more. kn our capitalist society, it makes sense to me.

You gave one counter-example that is not strong enough to change my opinion as it can also be explained with the firm having poorly evaluated what their target audience was. They do say in the article that more women started buying tyres after the marketing change, which is indeed not the audience targeted with the sexy-girl ad.

It does however a good job at disproving the affirmation “because everyone regardless of gender and age are biologically conditioned to look at them.” to which you were originally replying, and I disagree with that affirmation as well. I just think your conclusion goes too far i the other direction, in the absence of further evidence.

It’s the salesmen who want the stall staffed with models, not the customers.

Could you link the evidence-base of this though?

What marketing departments dominated by men think works is not the same thing as what actually works

In this case, isn’t it because the market evolved faster than they could keep up with? Probably there was a time where most of their customers were “macho men”, so these adds would work in marketing.

This makes me think about the French “je m’en bats les couilles” (litt. “I beat my balls with it”). Some girls say it too, others say they beat their ovaries instead.

the comment that ‘upset’ me in the context you are asking is the one where the guy calls me butthurt for disagreeing with his opinion

This is not in the context they were asking though, this happened as a response to your rant.
What some of us would want to have is documented examples of what caused you to write this post.

In a comment you complained about nobody having “shared their experience in a meaningful way”, but you haven’t shared anything concrete either.

In the post you said:

I remember we could still have discussions about controversial topics without things getting ugly

Yet to me things do not seem to have gotten ugly when you expressed a very controversial opinion in the “taliban” post. This is were concrete examples would help understanding your point.

Some users did disrepect you about this issue in this post, and I definitely do not support that ! In the end, you are a teen getting bullied (probably by adults) for having an opinion, and this is wrong no matter how bad the opinion is.

there isn’t really much else you can do

One could also do nothing. What are the insults supposed to achieve?

some people kinda deserve to be called names.

Are you arguing in favor of retributive “justice”? Isn’t it exactly OP’s shitty opinion that they get bullied for?

what each post produced was really high quality

I’ve only been participating in discussions on Lemmy groups for 3ish years, but I’m quite sure that never happened. There have always been good and bad posts, good and bad comments, civil and less civil users.