loquacius posted:

gotchoo fam

Lodin posted:

Is there a story reason for why Dildobert dropped the tie and is now dressed as late 90s hipster from some tech startup?

loquacius posted:

Engineers don't wear ties anymore

In techworld if you see someone in a tie it means they're at their first ever tech job interview

In-story I dunno but I'd guess someone pointed this out to Adams and he went "huh, I guess" and did a one-off strip where pointy-haired boss said "ok no more ties" and that was it (y'know, the laziest possible option)

loquacius posted:

As a followup, I actually remember the exact circumstances that explained Smith's line of thinking in this one, if anyone's curious: there were a nonzero number of people who hated their jobs but were keeping them because they needed the health insurance. After Obamacare, those people could finally quit and move on with their lives. The GOP, of course, interpreted this as those people having been fired (forever) because their bosses could no longer afford to pay their health insurance. Someone tried to explain to Rob Smith Jr what really happened and he found this completely incomprehensible because why would you choose to not work when you could receive millions of dollars in salary, 3 months of paid vacation, and an annual $10,000 bonus??? (The idea that the vast, vast majority of jobs offer none of these things did not occur to him)

Manuel Calavera posted:

loquacius posted:

Engineers don't wear ties anymore

In techworld if you see someone in a tie it means they're at their first ever tech job interview

In-story I dunno but I'd guess someone pointed this out to Adams and he went "huh, I guess" and did a one-off strip where pointy-haired boss said "ok no more ties" and that was it (y'know, the laziest possible option)

loquacius posted:

Yeah AFAICT it's just the 2019-flavored equivalent of the old standard "BE A REAL MANLY MAN WITH OUR RAZORS" ad campaign, and calling for responsible behavior is great but I dunno why we're looking to razor companies for social guidance other than that the Shadowrun hellworld is already in full swing

Behind every woke brand is a smoke-filled room full of Don Drapers gleefully accepting your woke money

Somfin posted:

As I said in another thread, someone at Gillette had to convince their board of directors that making GBS threads on their own company history in order to position themselves as "not a lovely Man's Company corp" would be a good move, when that's been the brand identity for decades. There are angry meetings and threats of firings/resignations behind that ad and it got made anyway.

loquacius posted:

I don't believe this for a second though

It wouldn't have gotten greenlit with money spent on it if there weren't numbers and focus-group studies promising a big return on investment. It is a marketing campaign, designed to raise sales. If it did not fulfill this purpose, it would not have been given the OK to air, because corporations are not benevolent social actors just trying to make some positive change in the world.

They did some studies on what would make them the most money and determined this would be worth any perceived risk with the chud set, and once those stodgy businessmen saw those numbers, they fell in line, because they want money; this is the primary differentiating factor and main motivation of the kind of person who would be an executive at any corporation.

Katt posted:

This is unfair. Companies gamble on ads and political positions all the time and end up burnt as a result. Despite focus groups and highly paid marketing galaxy brains.

Gillette gambled on a risky progressive one which is to their credit.

loquacius posted:

Engineers don't wear ties anymore

In techworld if you see someone in a tie it means they're at their first ever tech job interview

In-story I dunno but I'd guess someone pointed this out to Adams and he went "huh, I guess" and did a one-off strip where pointy-haired boss said "ok no more ties" and that was it (y'know, the laziest possible option)

loquacius posted:

gotchoo fam

Jurgan posted:

It looks to me like they now wear lanyards with security keycards on them. I have to admit, it's good that he kept up with the trends. On the other hand, it's also convenient to date the strip- if Dilbert is not wearing a tie, then it's well past the jump-the-shark moment.

loquacius posted:

Any time anyone spends money on anything it's a gamble, sure. But at the end of the day the goal of every marketing campaign is to raise money, and this one was calculated to raise money from people like us at the cost of raising less money from people like Mike Lester, and the people making it were reasonably sure it would work, or they wouldn't have done it, because they are marketing executives at a corporation. If you think they made this ad after much internal turmoil because they wanted to make the world a better place (which is what Somfin said) you're fooling yourself.

I'm just saying if you see an ad with a social message you like and think "wow, that sure was nice of that corporation to selflessly spend their ad money on an ad that appeals to me" the ad is working as intended.

loquacius posted:

It wouldn't be a newspaper comic strip if it didn't continue to struggle through a tortured sort of pseudo-life decades after its cultural relevance had faded to nothingness

Somfin posted:

You're the one suggesting this was selfless. I'm saying that it's a bold and scary move that I hope pays off. Conservative voices do not actually care about the numbers, they care about their image. If you think that boards of directors are made up of rational, logical beings you're falling for their propaganda.

VitalSigns posted:

At the beginning of Dilbert, the intern was hypercompetent (if naive), critically underappreciated, and constantly flummoxed by the dull stupidity of his old-rear end out-of-touch boss.

But I guess now Boomers are in their 50s and 60s so the boss is a smart witty quipster and the new kid isn't even capable of thought. And those who hate and fear new-fangled technology are wise guardians of the Better Times, instead of lazy Luddite dullards.

Manuel Calavera posted:

what the gently caress is that, anything?

frankenfreak posted:

VitalSigns posted:

How is it even possible to be this consistently stupid.

loquacius posted:

you're the one saying they were willing to launch a huge marketing campaign they didn't think would make money

Somfin posted:

Here's where you're wrong, and you're making bad assumptions again.

I think there was a lot of data suggesting the campaign would make money. I think that the conservative elements of Gillette and PnG would have been quite willing to dismiss those because they'd already spent so much money positioning Gillette as a Man Brand.

Cloud Potato posted:

Evening Standard:

loquacius posted:

Then why on Earth did you feel the need to step in and defend the international corporation when I said "keep in mind this was a cynical decision and you are being marketed to", and why are you continuing to argue when I continue to say this

Somfin posted:

If there's so much obvious money there why aren't all companies doing the same thing?

loquacius posted:

in short, chill the gently caress out

Katt posted:

Papa Johns wants in on this easy money approach to marketing.

Somfin posted:

Gonna save this for the next time a company does something good and you immediately start shouting about them for daring to benefit from it

Sandpuppy posted:

16
I wonder if these guys similarly storm out of church when Jesus dares to suggest they be nicer to their fellow human.

Sandpuppy posted:

17

Sandpuppy posted:

17

Lightning Knight posted:

I understand that the broad point of this is that they want RBG to die so Trump can fill her seat but I don't understand why she's on a beach and why there's crabs.

Sandpuppy posted:

3