Quote:
Originally posted by RastaMentality
No one is arguing that it isn't "gay enough". the fact of the matter is, is that it's shoehorned into the marketing campaign, and we all know what the advert is trying to imply by shoeohorning a gay man into the commercial. it's not equality, it's calculated marketing in an attempt to appeal to a certain demographic, "equality" isn't a byproduct of marketing endeavors, because marketing is just that, to raise sales, not advocate any rights of equality.
|
Marketing trying to grab a demographic, what else is new?
Point is, it still adds visibility of simple homosexuality into the public perceptive. It's just too bad it's not more abundant.
Quote:
Originally posted by robboadam
This is just stupid.
Why do some companies seem to think they need to have gay people in adverts now?
And I'm gay, but I just don't like this forcing advert. They were trying too hard.
|
Fail.
So, a gay person in an advertisement means the producers felt they
needed to have a gay person in it? Which to you is unnecessary? How often do you criticize commercials featuring hetero people or relationships? Or commercials featuring men? Or women? Or children? You don't, because these things are perfectly normal to you. I recommend you learn to view homosexuality as the perfectly normal trait that it also is so that you can be less prejudiced and bothered when you see them in media, where you clearly think they don 't need to be.
The ones who produced the commercial didn't think they
needed to have gay people in it. They
chose to have gay people in it because they
wanted them there for whatever reason, just like they chose the rest of the characters.
The gay content was subtle, modest, and lasted 1.5 seconds. Please.