Sanitary towel firm's 'CEO' sets traumatised man straight Sanitary towel outfit Bodyform has gained itself some serious internet kudos with a video response to a Brit chap's complaint that women's periods are not a rollercoaster ride of joy and outdoor activity, as the firm's ads suggest. Richard Neill recently challenged Bodyform on Facebook: Hi, as a man I must ask why you have …
I think the part at the end where she farts is the real nice touch here, showing that women are indeed just like men, only without the male bits and.... actually, how many men would really post on a topic about a females time of the month without running away running and screaming in terror? Holy shit, that chick got men talking about periods!
The poster of the original complaint has been on Facebook since 2009 and has acquired over 360 'friends' in that time. I'm sure if you could be arsed, you could search through those friends to see if any of them have links to any part of the Bodyform empire, ad agencies or whatever.
On the other hand it could just be some bloke recycling a veeeeeeeery old joke and the company on the receiving end having a sense of humour and knowing how to exploit it.
Are you aware that PR companies pay normal people to write stuff in their Facebook / Twatter accounts? There was a Register article about an automatic grass mower not that long ago, and a couple of years back my village did the same thing to attract more tourism. It's just another tool in the marketer's toolbox.
Are you aware that PR companies pay normal people to write stuff in their Facebook / Twatter accounts?
Horror! Can this be true? Next you'll tell us that sock-puppets and spambots are real too.
Pretty clever of the diabolical marketers to wait three years to respond to their Astroturfed provocation, though. That should fool all but the most insightful observers. Good thing Captain Hogwash and the Super Cynics (with special guest star WorkingFromHome and featuring the Coward Corps) caught it for us!
Certainly there's a tremendous difference between a spontaneous joke response, and one that was a set-up. Remind me again what that difference is, would you?
Even if the original "complaint" wasn't part of a marketing/PR effort, it was surely not meant as a genuine complaint but rather as a lame attempt at humour. The fact that the video response happened at all seems to confirm either the previously suggested setup or that some really dim types didn't get it to believe that a response was necessary.
Yeah, me too, a lifelong cynic. But if it is a setup who cares? It's actually funny - really funny, and brilliantly executed. That from memory is what a good deal of TV advertising did years ago; it was witty or stylish in some way that allowed it to claim a minor place in the culture as sufficiently entertaining not to annoy. Marketing these days is pushy, deceitful, breathless and sweaty, hence no one pays it much attention. Fuck aspirational, humour (particularly self parody) will do me just fine.
The response video was certainly coordinated with a press launch. This article appeared at exactly the same time the video was put up. Note that the article already claims it's viral. I saw the video at about 400 views at this point.
http://www.stylist.co.uk/life/bodyform-period-myth-advertising-video-response#image-rotator-1
This was 8 days from the original post, which probably didn't get popular until a few days after posting. You'd suspect that getting press lined up, making the video, getting clearance for the campaign, would all take some time to organise.
I'm guessing the poster was genuine, as in they are a real person. I'm assuming Bodyform asked them to post it, however, or there's some connection there. Cynical me...
Perhaps, but be aware any sense of humour only exists to sell products that aren't really necessary anyway. *
Getting an actress + minimal set crew isn't something an employee has done out of a sense of fun; a business case has been made for this.
* The "cups" work just as well as the pads, and are MUCH cheaper over a woman's lifetime. (Majority opinion of the the three women I've actually discussed this with.)
Bodyform advertisements were lampooned in mid nineties on a sketch in The Ben Elton Show, along similar lines to Richard Neill's complaint. Mr Elton also exposed the dangers of women uncontrollably swinging their hair around in slow motion after using shampoo and conditioner. But well played, Bodyform!
The adverts that really need bashing are for skin care, with their fake 'Swiss laboratories', dubious statistics ("87% of women agree!* ... [small print:] *study of 37 women") and pseudo scientific animations of their product 'in action'. They don't do real science and statistics, or real women, (or women in science!) any favours at all.
Frank Zappa had a spin on it, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYOIp66w9I&feature=relmfu
I'd forgotten Ben Elton had done that routine.
I'd just like to point out that you made a small, but important flaw in your summing up of the dubious statistics. It's an easy mistake as you quite rightly end where the adverts do. What they fail to add to that small print as they do not have to legally declare it yet is this:
*study of 37 women chosen from carefully selected consumer panels consisting of women who already buy our products and have a proven track record of believing any shit we tell them.")
And THAT is the 37 that *
*
- did not develop skin rashes, experience diarrhea, constipation, spontaneously-inverted eyelids, pupil recolorization, 360° head spins, vomiting, dizziness, prolonged mensteuation, excessively dry urination, scratchy throat, itchy ass, enlarged knuckles, curled toes, visions of screaming lab animals, or other "experimental miss adventures prior to the survey...
Jkjkjkjkjkjkjk
And not the "The 37s" from ST Voyager
btw, just in case, my posting is related not to sanitary napkins but to skin lotions. Some are rash makers for some people. Some are egregious wastes of consumer cash. But, the FDA and the market tolerate all sorts of non-lethal bullshit in the market even if the product does not deserve shelf space.
>In a study of 37 women, 32 women agreeing would be 86% and 33 women agreeing would be 89%. It's not mathematically possible for a study of 37 women to result in 87% of them agreeing.
'A girl can change her mind, can't she?'
I made up the figures on the spot, as well you know! I did consider calculating figures that would work, but felt it was overkill to make the point! : D
The fake CEO in the fake response to the probably fake Facebook post claims that the imagery used in the adverts - horse-riding, sky-diving, etc. - are "metaphors".
Now, a "metaphor" is:
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
2. A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.
So, the ad images are metaphors to ... what exactly? Something similarly positive? Happiness? Excitement? No? What then?
Or is "metaphor" just an advertising term for "lie"?
Sorry to be so pompous about this but words and their meanings matter.
They're a metaphor for the relative freedom from misery that sanitary products apparently provide women and presumably for the joy that comes with not having to stuff rags down your pants and rinse them out in the river every day.
Seems all those years I spent at university have finally found a use...
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
As we appear to be in nit-picky mood at the moment, it is significantly less than half who could use the products once you take into account the pre-pubescent and post-menopausal females.
Given that a woman only menstruates for 40 years or so (Wikipedia) out of a an average life expectancy of 80 for women (stat. from the 2011 CIA yearbook again via Wikipedia), I would guess that it is no more than about 30% of the population, once you factor in the higher life expectancy of women.
He's a statistics teacher, obviously!
How long was between the original FB post and the video responce? Was it enough time to create this highly polished piece? Read FB post, decide to play on it, write script, get client approval, audition actress, book set and staff/eqipment, film sequence, perform post-film editing, get final approval, post to youtube.
To me the quality of the video is just too good.
PR types come up with pitch for "viral" ad, write script, select actress, get approvals etc ahead of time.
They just wait for a suitable facebook post to "respond" to, and when it comes along, kick all the wheels in motion - fill in the guy's name in the script and shoot the ad.
Of course a conspiracy theorist might say they just paid this guy to write his comments so they could run the ad.
... we've done similar productions end-to-end in 4 days. Pre-production e.g. shot lists, storyboarding for a 2 min piece can easily be started in the morning and by lunchtime you start parallel production so by the time all your scripting et all is finished at the end of the first day, all your crew, kit and location are ready to go for the 2nd day, film it in a day leaving the 3rd and fourth for post. Easily achievable on a small budget with a small crew.
Anyone mind the advert that ruined that 'It's my life' song by Dr Alban?
Could never take it seriously again without visualising a windsurfing or rollerskating lady skating into the sunset.
Bit like that 'Young Folks' song that has been ruined by Homebase. Shame on you Peter Bjorn and John!
When I went to the Tambrands site to maintain their warehousing system (IT link!) I was made by my colleagues to go on a tour of their R & D labs and they used red water (and I think glycerine) mixes. It was all a little bid to real for a lad who had grown up without exposure to such things!
I know what you mean, and I think I also know where that feeling comes from.
You got that because the response was made too personal. I like a windup like anyone else, but you do that with subtlety - you throw in a remark or play back some parts in a way that makes your point and that's where you stop. This ad is in that context *way* too long and *way* too personal, this response is more that of an axe murderer..
Which means some other commentards are right: It's that time of the month again.
We took 37 middle-aged women who are desperate to look younger. We gave them a tub of grease - and a bit of pseudo-science - that we told them would make them look younger. Several weeks later, those 37 women were convinced they look younger.
Buy our product it "scientifically proven" to make you look younger!
The worst thing that ever happened to me was visiting the neighborhood mean (russian) kids house. The bullys. I went because I was becoming a bully, but when I was there one day, the fuckers brought out a little wooden box, inside was a bloody rag from their mom, they shoved it in my face. It was more choreographed bullyness than trauma. Once it touched your face the game was over. Everyone in that family was a weight lifter so fighting them was impossible.
I wasn't the only one, but I did get some joy in watching others go through the same thing as they years went by.
I too wouldnt be surprised if the initial comments weren't infact posted by bodyform in order to stage this low budget advertising as its hardly "genius" at work to come up with this when you take a step back
As for the response if we assume its not staged then I also wonder if every person who works at body form is either so up their own arse, in love with Germaine Greer, a paid up member of the misandrists party or just doesnt actually have a sense of humour to be truthful
As the "response" itself does (to me) seem to have a bit of a passive aggressive/snipey/condescending sort of undertone rather being pure fun and humour. And also seems to have completely missed the (again, in my opinion) clearly satirical ironic humour in the initial post it was responding to
A complete company wide lack of humour would of course explain missing the humour in the initial post as well as the negative undertones in the response.
But so would the entire comanies employees periods all syncrhonising and occuring during the week they made this response
I did actually find it funny enough to chuckle at, but this was lessened by feeling theres a distinct and clearly vitriolic undertone also present. Bad time of the month I guess lol
about the aggressive angle, I suppose it was decided on, as "this is how the boys play". And they do, but only when they know each other rather well, so they know the "aggressive" is not real. And when they're boys. Girls are NOT invited.
And yes, I believe the whole post / response is a full, pre-planned setup. but it works, exactly because is is creating controversy (is the post real, is the whole thing staged?). Some of you say "ah, but they chose the wrong target audience, we're not buying tampons and wingdings anyway". And yet... you ARE spreading the message. How many of you will, sooner than later, share the story with you (female) partners? They will be forced to, or feel obliged to, look at this video, to give you their reaction, comment, etc., and those females are a target audience. On top of which they - obviously - communicate with their female friends, and some of those, possibly a majority, will transmit the message further. On top of that, other media, which can't be arsed to come up with real news, will pick the "story" up, from bbc to daily mail.
I'm not saying we're facing a world-scale viral infection, I'm only saying, it is working.
I think the vitriolic tone is due to the fact that, although the video is a response to a man, it's a product for women - and it's clearly an ad aimed at women.
Not entirely dissimilar to the ads (at least the ones we get here in Australia) where the girl walks in the front door and the guy is using tampons/pads to play with the cat, dress up, etc and basically acts like a massive fucking moron - it's an attempt to illustrate the idea that "men don't understand what you're going through - but WE do."
The anger is supposed to be a feeling that women can relate to on the subject - an attempt to get them "on-side".
when i'm ill/in pain/fucked off i know i'm a tetchy git and hole up in the study to keep from snapping at people. thats because i know i'm being unreasonable and as a loving, caring person I want to avoid causing undue distress.
the wife on the other hand almost goes out of her way to invent invisible traps and let you fall in for a mauling. anything. not hoovering the lounge (even though you cant see anything that needed hoovering, she must be looking at the knap of the bloody fabric), not washing the car (apparantly thats my job, washing the outside of a tin can that other people look at and i dont as im f*cking inside the thing. drives nice, clean inside, the outside could have 'i love jimmy saville' spray painted on it and i couldnt give a toss), not taking out a bin bag i didn't even know was there because i haven't installed cctv in the f*cking kitchen and its been there for 3 minutes (again apparently taking a bin bag 4 meters into the garden is always my job for some unknown reason). at times like that you wonder if there wasn't cars, bin bags and spiders you'd be out on your arse.
an old local comedy band covered this topic years ago in a bitter sweet song ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isv7CiWtyPk ). The lead singer apparently wrote from his experience in all his songs. gets a little dark towards the end - 'i could think of better ways, than spending my Saturdays, in the ward of Southend casualty, PMT stands for Pre, Meditated Treachery, better duck here comes some more well aimed crockery'
Get a hysterectomy. Solves the problem quite nicely. Of course, your female companion will STILL go through the mood swings and "personal summers", but they can start skydiving right away.
Unfortunately the solution at some time (age dependent) is worse than the cure. But considering that my spouse had this operation a few years ago, there is MUCH LESS of a problem.
Live and learn.
And I'm gonna write it anyway.
This particular brand isn't available here (though the package looks somewhat familiar but then again....) so I decided to take a closer look to the ads myself. From the article and the commercials I found on YouTube (see here (YouTube link) for example) I can only come to one (maybe two) conclusions...
Either the complaining guy doesn't have a real gf or he's a self absorbed arrogant S.O.B. The reason I come to that conclusion is because IMO the ad makes it perfectly clear: This isn't about "us", its about "them" (no offense)...
Think about it; why is that girl walking around alone? Why is she going to a concert, trying to climb a construction, then wrestling her way into the subway only to end up trying to walk a marathon (sort off) ?
I see sooo many matches with the way my SO behaves when its 'that time of the month'. Easily changing her mind on a whim is one of those. Quite frankly I got the message very clearly; this isn't about me; its about her. If SHE feels like going to concert and also feels like dragging me along SHE can. I'll just have to shut up and like it ;-)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
