When Unilever launched DFM ( Dove for Men) here is how Old Spice responded.

[Le Gaucher]

OS didn't mention DFM , drew no comparisons .. nada
zip. They launched a campaign that pretended DFM did not exist.

OS played to it strength around defining Masculinity. It avoided spending it's limited budget on super bowl ads by smart targeting social media and women's magazines. ( Women make a large number of household purchases)


OS campaign was very successful against a very deep pocketed competitor. It protected its market share and then some.

I think Democrats need to learn from it. Fuck Trump and Republicans. We need to focus on our message of shared prosperity /well being for ALL. We have to do it by cutting through the clutter of distraction that Trump is expert at creating .. Trump will try to own Media News Cycles .. positive or negative ..he will try to dominate that space. But we need to create some ambush marketing strategies that help us get our message across.


This is a fight of our lives!!

[Vinca]

1. Politics-wise I agree entirely. Soap-wise I wonder why men need their own soap. LOL.

[Honeycombe8]

5. Same reason women need their own soap.

Neither "need" their own soap, but their skin is different. And different fragrances appeal to the sexes. Phermones & all that.

[Codeine]

8. Different fragrances?

I don’t want to smell like coconuts and pomegranates, my wife doesn’t want to smell like Old Spice WolfThorn.

And neither of us want to smell like our ten year old’s watermelon-scented soap.

[forgotmylogin]

17. Yep, exactly.

I find as I get older and my skin is drier in wintertime it helps prevent itching to use a moisturizing soap, and Dove is usually marketed to women. The original scent isn't actually what I'd call "girly"...it's more of a clean makeup cosmetic scent.

The fragrance notes are different to appeal to men (or women who like their men not to smell like mangoberrysparkleglitter!) They were smart not to hypermasculinize the campaign though. It's nice to have alternatives without being EXTREEME shouted at.

Although I really did love the "I'M ON A HORSE" Old Spice commercials!

[Orsino]

25. Because we stink. n/t

[3Hotdogs]

2. Well it has to do with viscocity. You see, when you are in the shower by yourse... aw forget it.

[ehrnst]

10. LOL!!! (nt)

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Advertising has everything all fouled up

This is one of my favorite rant topics. Look at the money Big Pharma spends on TV in this country. Look at our drug prices. Is it true the US is the only country that allows TV advertising for medications? I don't know.

TV dinners. Some industry group did a study to probe slowing sales. Their recommendation? More advertising. The money doesn't go in the food, just look at the portions - it goes to advertising.

Has anyone noticed national brand products are 19% empty? I can't believe the space in the top of a can of beans. $1.19! I bought a local no frills brand. Two color label. Simple ingredients - beans, sugar, salt. No advertising. You couldn't fit another bean in the can. Price? $.50. Fifty cents!

Cable TV? You pay for the access, you still have to watch commercials.

So yes, you're on the money about niche marketing, target marketing. We need to reach the people and walk them through it.

[llmart]

12. It's one of my favorite rant topics also.

They eventually banned cigarette advertising, why can't we ban advertising of prescription drugs on TV? People see these ads and then go to their doctor and sometimes demand a script for something. Now we have an opioid crisis. We have a prescription drug crisis, an antibiotic resistant crisis, you name it anything you want, but Americans take way too many over the counter and prescription drugs without knowing the real affects on their bodies.

Cable TV? When it first came out it was touted as "you will never have to look at advertising again because this is a service you pay for." How'd that work out?

[Achilleaze]

4. Build and articulate a strong, simple, positive platform

and be sure that climate chaos, renewable energy, and environmental protection are strong, forward-looking planks.

The corrupt dealings of Dirty Donny* and the KGOP republican a-holes will be plain enough for all to see. Just pissing on the republican cesspool will not do it for Dems.

Thanks for the OP

[leftstreet]

22. Or just put a half-naked guy on a horse

I'm kidding, of course, but I actually DO remember when they ran those ads

[lastlib]

6. Your last line says it all!

This is truly a fight for our very lives! Put our agenda out there, show the Repuglikan alternative, and let the people decide!

[rurallib]

7. Old Spice is a P&G product so I doubt its budget is too limited

not sure which giant is bigger - P&G or Unilever. When it comes to soaps and toiletries, those two companies fill most of the shelves in this country. Competition really doesn't exist for the most part.

But that doesn't matter for your message. Can Dems win only talking issues and pretend that Trump and all the other assholes that back him don't exist from the statehouse to congress?
I don't think so, but they have to strike a balance of not sounding too negative while reminding folks that Trump and republicans are reaming them.

[Le Gaucher]

19. OS had its own budget ..not under P&G ..

I taught this case study at Temple University a while back and provide the details.. but they had just a few million to work with (annually).DFM had a super bowl spot.. if OS responded in kind, . a single super bowl spot would have shot its budget.

[brush]

9. I like your thinking. Any ideas on how to get this to Dem leadership?

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. What happens or works in a crowded market of consumer fragrances and washing products

is irrelevant to political contests where there are only 2 viable winning parties, and where the opposition is toxic.

Do you think that if DFM appeared to give people 3rd degree burns, Old Spice would not have mentioned that in the media?

How did you start your post by saying we should learn from a campaign that "pretended DFM did not exist", and end by advocating ambush marketing, which by definition has to acknowledge the existence, and even dominance, of the competition? Did you change you mind halfway through?

[IronLionZion]

13. Dean's 50 state strategy worked well in 2006 and 2008

Where we got lots of Dems elected all over this country, in even the most unlikely places. We need to rebuild our party from local grass roots levels on up. Seeding the land with good Dems who know their local constituents and issues and can build up loyal support for higher office.

When you look at the few consumer products who haven't jacked up their prices over the years. They tend to be the ones with longtime loyal customers and spend very little on advertising.

[Still In Wisconsin]

14. In Wisconsin I have seen three candidates for Governor lose on an "I'm not Scott Walker" platform.

On the national level, bust being "anti-Trump" won't carry the day. Gotta have a message, and it wouldn't be hard to craft a neat, coherent "shared prosperity" message as you say.

[Denzil_DC]

15. What you're suggesting sounds like the "Salmond Doctrine".

Alec Salmond, ex-Scottish First Minister and ex-Scottish National Party leader, has always insisted that your party election literature should not give undue prominence to your opponents, as you're just giving them free publicity from your own limited budget. Under the doctrine, the SNP's official campaigns generally focused on the positive aspects of what candidates and the party have done and could do in power.

This is the approach the SNP still adheres to. It has limits. Certainly, the SNP's election literature doesn't personalize its campaigns, particularly at a local level, though it will obviously mention "Tory-imposed austerity" as something to be opposed etc. This is in contrast to the approach of its opponents - there were far more mentions of the SNP and its leaders in much of their opponents' literature during the last general election than there were of their own candidates and policies, except for a concerted sentiment of "kick the SNP out" and "no second independence referendum" from all the opposition parties except the Greens.

The SNP's held power in Scotland since 2007, though twice it has had to rely on support from other parties to govern because the Scottish proportional electoral system was deliberately set up to prevent one party gaining overall power and to promote coalitions. The last UK general election saw quite large losses for the SNP at Westminster, but that was from an unrealistic wipe-out high in the previous election and in the face of not-so-hidden co-operation between its opponents to promote tactical anti-SNP voting.

But the parallels with the US political scene are limited. The Scottish political scene is not two-party (though, especially in recent times, it's heavily polarized into pro-and anti-independence camps which cut across party boundaries, so in that sense it's bipolar). Election expenditure is supposed to be subject to strict limits (though the loopholes are widely exploited). Election campaigns proper are very short indeed compared to America. The lines aren't as clearly drawn in a number of people's minds between goodies and baddies.

But since the media in Scotland and the UK as a whole are almost uniformly critical (to say the least) of the SNP government and independence, the party's continued performance has been impressive. Some of that is because the SNP was driven by media hostility to develop very effective social media engagement strategies to reach out to supporters and the persuadable directly (which can be two-edged, as some supporters can go over the top and this predictably gets seized on by the media, but then democracy tends to be messy at times). Some of the media bias is so predictable and demonstrably unjustified that it's backfired and had a terrible effect on the reputation of the media, so many tend to rely on it less, if at all, for reliable information (that may ring bells in the US situation - it cuts both ways, across the parties!)

I'd say that direct outreach strategy, tied with championing of a positive message, would be a way forward in the US, but then it's not exactly new - see the Obama campaigns. Certainly, too great a focus on negative messaging about opponents appears to have a limited appeal and effect.

[malthaussen]

16. Old Spice likes to claim that if my grandfather hadn't worn it...

... I wouldn't exist.

Only problem is, both my mother and father were born before 1938.

-- Mal

[Le Gaucher]

18. Lol..

That is funny!

[sarah FAILIN]

20. We have got to get past the things dividing us.

Every time someone creates a rift in the non republican groups, Trump wins a little. It has to stop and we have to come together to get rid of him. Yes, we focus on our strengths, but if that isn't the main goal we are going to faillustrate. Nobody won a war rambling around all over the place doing what made them happy individually.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. 52 recs - what is this ambush marketing that doesn't mention the competition?

Plenty of people have said they think this is a good idea. But on the face of it, it's a contradiction in terms. Can one of you explain what it means?

[Le Gaucher]

23. Ambush marketing wasn't the main point ..

The main point I was trying is Drive home the message why people should vote for you .. and it can't be "We are better than Republicans". Drawing contrasts helps only when the competition is generally indistinguishable.

Otherwise , when you have genuine advantages - you should focus on your strengths.

I suggested Ambush marketing as an attention grabbing device. It has nothing to do with my central idea.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. It has to include "we are better than the Republicans"

This is a very different situation from "Old Spice trying to increase their sales". There are all kinds of products people can use apart from both Old Spice and Dove For Men. Going negative on DFM wouldn't necessarily make people think "I need to buy more Old Spice stuff". They could choose other brands, or cheap own-brand stuff. And what is there negative to say about DFM? It doesn't hurt or poison people. It doesn't smell awful.

But the Republicans are bad for people. They divide us. They hurt many people. To ignore that, and just make your message "Democrats are great" is to ignore the pain of the country. It looks out of touch. And if you're trying to change the way people vote, they need more than just "give us a try, we promise to be even better than the current situation, which we won't talk about". You have to point out what it wrong with the current situation, and why the incumbents are a disaster.