HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Not here.
Ah, ok. Fair enough. I don't know what ads they show in the UK.
Not here.
Ah, I found and read the actual study: https://www.unstereotypealliance.or...INCLUSIVE ADVERTISING (Business case) WEB.pdf
It's about less than people seem to think. That inclusivity is about women. Their calculated index is the "GENDER UNSTEREOTYPE METRIC (GUM)." (And it's only in caps because I copy and pasted that from a title.) They don't even calculate their index for any other categories than men and women. I guess the UN Women part should have been a clue.
It's stuff like Mars discovering that they're selling more chocolate if they include more women in the ads....
So, the GUM does not directly measure diversity at all.
Pretty sure that's what I was saying too.
And not just directly. It doesn't measure it, period.
As for the inclusivity and diversity stuff... really, it's not even about a calculated correlation. They just "deduced commonalities" in the top 25% and bottom 25% of the spectrum.
And it's not just that they don't show the correlation data with that diversity stuff, they don't even say what correlates with what.
What you got wrong is that you said that GUM was a measure of the degree of female representation in the ads. It is not.
Well, if A correlates with B, and B correlates with C, then A correlates with C and hence is an indirect measure of C, although possibly a poor one.
I missed all those gay couples in adverts decades back, along with the Asian couples etc.
There's a difference between inclusivity in advertising and harping on systemic racism and injustice, even if they have to invent it. "Woke" is more like the latter.
It also doesn't go unnoticed when someone just unilaterally declares victory and pats themselves on the back, without actually even trying to have a sound argument. Because see above, the actual study supported none of those claims.
The whole thread is a sound argument. Your side lost.
I mean, they weren't exactly global brands.the length of the list of companies that went woke and then broke kind of speaks for itself
the length of the list of companies that went woke and then broke kind of speaks for itself
If they actually wanted to measure diversity in advertising, they could do just that quite objectively. Just take a marketing campaign, and count how many groups it represents, put that in your correlation. If it supports the hypothesis, cool.
But that's not what they did. They used their "Gender Unstereotype Metric", which is actually ironically named, because it has nothing to do with stereotypes, and they didn't split it by gender. In fact, they even say they averaged male and female scores for each company. And it only measures whether those characters are positively or negatively portrayed, which would only measure being non-stereotypical if the only stereotypes about both genders were negative.
Indeed for each ad in the study they had measures of 65 characteristics of the characters portrayed, including the "inclusivity" variables age, ethnicity, skin tone, body type [and] sexual orientation.... So, if they wanted to test the hypothesis that "inclusivity" in advertising boosts sales, why did they use GUM, a measure of positive portrayal that only correlates—to an undisclosed degree—with these direct measures of inclusivity, rather than do the obvious thing: use the direct measures of inclusivity themselves? We can't say for sure, but one obvious possibility is that the direct measures of inclusivity didn't show the positive results they hoped for, but GUM, a measure of positive portrayal, did. So they used GUM and argued (poorly) that it can be considered a surrogate measure of inclusivity.
Really?I think this is no longer true here, but mainly because we now show so many adverts that are imported from the UK and the USA (with Australian accents dubbed over the vision).
Yeah. I was an embarrassing number of years old when I found out that Flo from Progressive Insurance wasn't Australian.Really?
Yes really.Really?
Every accusation...Trump says they are nasty, enemies of the people.
WP? Or the people cancelling their subscriptions?Trump says they are nasty, enemies of the people.
I think Trump has often referred to the press, including the Post, as well of course as the "failing New York Times," as the enemy of the people. I think at times that they are, but not for the same reason. The policy of the press in general of sanewashing Trump's outrageous behavior and statements may come home to roost. He thinks they're his enemy, but when push comes to shove, they're not.WP? Or the people cancelling their subscriptions?
Owned fully by Bezos through a shell company so it's unlikely we will ever hear about the impact on the paper's bottom line. I will say that it is hard to believe that there are people out there who are on the fence but would be convinced by a WAPO editorial endorsing Harris. Does sort of reveal they were only kidding with that Democracy Dies in Darkness shtick.In the "Go anti-woke, go broke?" basket...
I'm seeing a few people on Facebook cancelling their Washington Post subscriptions because Jeff Bezos wouldn't let the WP editorial board endorse Kamala Harris.
Not sure how that'll translate to their financial position.
I'll need that explained, please.Does sort of reveal they were only kidding with that Democracy Dies in Darkness shtick.
After Trump was elected they started using that (on February 22, 2017) as their motto, much as the NY Times is "All the News That's Fit to Print." The pretty obvious implication was that Trump had brought on the darkness and the WAPO would shine the line to prevent democracy's death. Now in an election in which a whole lot of people think could mark the end of democracy in America, they won't tell us where they stand?I'll need that explained, please.
Apparently their owner won't let them.After Trump was elected they started using that (on February 22, 2017) as their motto, much as the NY Times is "All the News That's Fit to Print." The pretty obvious implication was that Trump had brought on the darkness and the WAPO would shine the line to prevent democracy's death. Now in an election in which a whole lot of people think could mark the end of democracy in America, they won't tell us where they stand?
Note: While I dislike Trump and intend to vote Democrat this year to express my displeasure with the GOP, I don't personally believe the hyperventilating about the end of democracy. But if one does believe it? They should be shouting from the rooftops to vote for Harris and not for Trump.
We still have a pretty good sense of what the WaPo Editorial Board were going to say, though.Apparently their owner won't let them.
Well, it used to be that the press was supposed to be impartial, and just report on the facts. In fact, even make sure to represent both sides of an issue, when people's opinions were involved.I don't much get what the preceding post has to do with Washington Post's decision not to take a stand, unless one is still delusional enough to believe that one must be some kind of radical to oppose Trump. I suppose that's a consequence of his and others' shifting of the center toward the right, but I don't buy it.