Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046 
|
Post by Olan on Aug 2, 2017 15:20:30 GMT
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikklynn on Aug 2, 2017 16:46:33 GMT
Powerful. I wish we didn't need ads like this.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 2, 2017 16:51:09 GMT
I love the message. But is it really by P&G??? I have my doubts - the grammar makes me think otherwise.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by Olan on Aug 2, 2017 19:36:57 GMT
Powerful. I wish we didn't need ads like this. I think it's great marketing and shows that black people have the same wish that you do. I buy 85% black for my consumables because it's important to me to support small business and actually get dollars/power to people who have the same value system I do. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 2, 2017 22:58:53 GMT
It's a beautiful and moving piece of video, but it's not a Procter & Gamble ad. It would say so at the end if it were.
In the beginning, the text says something about "Protect and Gamble." That's not the name of the company, though (it's Procter & Gamble, exactly like that), and generally companies get their own names right in their advertising.
The multiple other spelling and grammatical errors in the added text also belie the professional-looking video. There's even a spelling error in the YouTube title.
The script, directing, videography, and editing are first-rate. Whoever took over after that ... not so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by padresfan619 on Aug 3, 2017 2:04:47 GMT
I love the message. But is it really by P&G??? I have my doubts - the grammar makes me think otherwise. Careful your privilege is showing. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Aug 3, 2017 2:11:08 GMT
This is not a Proctor and Gamble message.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 3, 2017 2:25:02 GMT
I love the message. But is it really by P&G??? I have my doubts - the grammar makes me think otherwise. Careful your privilege is showing. That's stupid |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 19, 2024 23:01:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 3:36:05 GMT
The video footage IS from a Proctor & Gamble ad from their campaign My Black Is Beautiful, but the linked video in the OP was altered with the text portions which aren't in the real ad.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 3, 2017 3:38:29 GMT
The video footage IS from a Proctor & Gamble ad from their campaign My Black Is Beautiful, but the linked video in the OP was altered with the text portions which aren't in the real ad. OHHH!! Now it makes perfect sense.  I'd love to see the original ad. |
|
redhana
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by redhana on Aug 3, 2017 4:04:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 3, 2017 5:16:11 GMT
Thank you. That was powerfu, and beautifully done. |
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by Olan on Aug 3, 2017 12:11:10 GMT
It's a beautiful and moving piece of video, but it's not a Procter & Gamble ad. It would say so at the end if it were. In the beginning, the text says something about "Protect and Gamble." That's not the name of the company, though (it's Procter & Gamble, exactly like that), and generally companies get their own names right in their advertising. The multiple other spelling and grammatical errors in the added text also belie the professional-looking video. There's even a spelling error in the YouTube title. The script, directing, videography, and editing are first-rate. Whoever took over after that ... not so much. is another one. I watched the video on a website I could not link when I went to search for the video to post here I selected a YouTube link so that it would appear in the text box. For the record the video I originally viewed, the one I shared, and P&G "official" commercial all have the same content. The only difference is YouTube (the one I shared here) version has someone using IMovie or some other simple editing tools to add descriptive text.. I've said a time or two that no matter what I post, someone will take an adversarial stance to detract. I ignored the first poster questioning the validity because well....but it would have been incredibly easy to find out if the ad I posted was in fact a part of a P&G marketing campaign. |
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by Olan on Aug 3, 2017 12:13:59 GMT
The video footage IS from a Proctor & Gamble ad from their campaign My Black Is Beautiful, but the linked video in the OP was altered with the text portions which aren't in the real ad. Thanks. |
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,946
Location: North Idaho
|
Post by Nink on Aug 3, 2017 12:52:51 GMT
It's a beautiful and moving piece of video, but it's not a Procter & Gamble ad. It would say so at the end if it were. In the beginning, the text says something about "Protect and Gamble." That's not the name of the company, though (it's Procter & Gamble, exactly like that), and generally companies get their own names right in their advertising. The multiple other spelling and grammatical errors in the added text also belie the professional-looking video. There's even a spelling error in the YouTube title. The script, directing, videography, and editing are first-rate. Whoever took over after that ... not so much. is another one. I watched the video on a website I could not link when I went to search for the video to post here I selected a YouTube link so that it would appear in the text box. For the record the video I originally viewed, the one I shared, and P&G "official" commercial all have the same content. The only difference is YouTube (the one I shared here) version has someone using IMovie or some other simple editing tools to add descriptive text.. I've said a time or two that no matter what I post, someone will take an adversarial stance to detract. I ignored the first poster questioning the validity because well....but it would have been incredibly easy to find out if the ad I posted was in fact a part of a P&G marketing campaign. So you're ignoring the fact that everyone believes and said it's a beautifully done ad, and instead accuse people of detracting for their legitimate confusion at first? Alrighty then. |
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by Olan on Aug 3, 2017 13:09:26 GMT
lucyg is another one. I watched the video on a website I could not link when I went to search for the video to post here I selected a YouTube link so that it would appear in the text box. For the record the video I originally viewed, the one I shared, and P&G "official" commercial all have the same content. The only difference is YouTube (the one I shared here) version has someone using IMovie or some other simple editing tools to add descriptive text.. I've said a time or two that no matter what I post, someone will take an adversarial stance to detract. I ignored the first poster questioning the validity because well....but it would have been incredibly easy to find out if the ad I posted was in fact a part of a P&G marketing campaign. So you're ignoring the fact that everyone believes and said it's a beautifully done ad, and instead accuse people of detracting for their legitimate confusion at first? Alrighty then. Legitimate confusion? Whenever I am legitimately confused about something I will research it. I would certainly research it before declaring it fake and attacking the validity of it but maybe that's just Olan in 2017 *shrugs* Nink would not be the first pea to suggest I "ignore everyone". Everyone? It's a 1 page thread! When someone says "Beautifully done" what should my response be? Another one |
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,946
Location: North Idaho
|
Post by Nink on Aug 3, 2017 13:35:20 GMT
So you're ignoring the fact that everyone believes and said it's a beautifully done ad, and instead accuse people of detracting for their legitimate confusion at first? Alrighty then. Legitimate confusion? Whenever I am legitimately confused about something I will research it. I would certainly research it before declaring it fake and attacking the validity of it but maybe that's just Olan in 2017 *shrugs* Nink would not be the first pea to suggest I "ignore everyone". Everyone? It's a 1 page thread! When someone says "Beautifully done" what should my response be? Another one When the very title of your thread is that it's a P&G ad, but then post a link that brings into doubt whether it's actually a P&G ad, then yes, no matter how powerful the message I think it's fair to question it no matter who it is. But someone else posted the original link to the ad, so it's out there with a "little research" and peas acknowledged that it cleared up the confusion. I'm glad P&G made it. It's a message that needs to be seen. |
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 3, 2017 13:44:30 GMT
So you're ignoring the fact that everyone believes and said it's a beautifully done ad, and instead accuse people of detracting for their legitimate confusion at first? Alrighty then. Legitimate confusion? Whenever I am legitimately confused about something I will research it. I would certainly research it before declaring it fake and attacking the validity of it but maybe that's just Olan in 2017 *shrugs* Nink would not be the first pea to suggest I "ignore everyone". Everyone? It's a 1 page thread! When someone says "Beautifully done" what should my response be? Another one Newsflash Genius - you posted a link and then asked for our thoughts. We gave them. And now you bitch that we didn't take the time to research what YOU posted? Priceless. Another one |
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by Olan on Aug 3, 2017 13:50:51 GMT
Legitimate confusion? Whenever I am legitimately confused about something I will research it. I would certainly research it before declaring it fake and attacking the validity of it but maybe that's just Olan in 2017 *shrugs* Nink would not be the first pea to suggest I "ignore everyone". Everyone? It's a 1 page thread! When someone says "Beautifully done" what should my response be? Another one When the very title of your thread is that it's a P&G ad, but then post a link that brings into doubt whether it's actually a P&G ad, then yes, no matter how powerful the message I think it's fair to question it no matter who it is. But someone else posted the original link to the ad, so it's out there with a "little research" and peas acknowledged that it cleared up the confusion. I'm glad P&G made it. It's a message that needs to be seen. The title of my thread is Proctor & Gamble ad....because it is. The peas who questioned the authenticity of it wanted to detract or be jerks. If anyone was legitimately confused on a messageboard...google is in the next tab. 45 and fake news should make us all more likely to research whether or not something is fake before publically declaring it so. Edited to add: Instead of discussing the content of the ad Nink lucyg and AnotherPea would like like to discuss the authenticity of the video. When I point out lucyg could have easily researched the authenticity before declaring it fake Nink tells me I've "ignored everyone". Pretending to be tolerant but fighting against it at every turn even if it makes you look stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 3, 2017 14:08:06 GMT
hmmm. Maybe you should vet what you post beforehand, instead of posting a semi-literate knock-off and then getting pissy because peas question the authenticity.
If you'd posted the original P&G ad in the first place, you could have avoided all this (very minor, and peripheral to the main point) conflict.
But no. You thrive on the conflict.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by Olan on Aug 3, 2017 14:16:46 GMT
hmmm. Maybe you should vet what you post beforehand, instead of posting a semi-literate knock-off and then getting pissy because peas question the authenticity. If you'd posted the original P&G ad in the first place, you could have avoided all this (very minor, and peripheral to the main point) conflict. But no. You thrive on the conflict. Vet what I post? Maybe you should research what you say! You were wrong and can't even admit that. Again I will say the content is the same I explained how the version I posted ended up being different from the one you agree is beautifully done I acklowedge posting the ad without the text would have avoided this. Will you acknowledge 1. You could have easily found the original ad without the text introduction BEFORE posting on 2peas. You were wrong about it not being a P&G ad. 2. You are just being a jerk. Note: lucyg says I thrive on conflict though I've asked her several times to limit her interactions with me. When I've noticed her being especially bully like I don't engage and regualarly breeze right by her comments. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 3, 2017 14:26:41 GMT
hmmm. Maybe you should vet what you post beforehand, instead of posting a semi-literate knock-off and then getting pissy because peas question the authenticity. If you'd posted the original P&G ad in the first place, you could have avoided all this (very minor, and peripheral to the main point) conflict. But no. You thrive on the conflict. Vet what I post? Maybe you should research what you say! You were wrong and can't even admit that. Again I will say the content is the same I explained how the version I posted ended up being different from the one you agree is beautifully done I acklowedge posting the ad without the text would have avoided this. Will you acknowledge 1. You could have easily found the original ad without the text introduction BEFORE posting on 2peas. You were wrong about it not being a P&G ad. 2. You are just being a jerk. 1. As you presented it, it was NOT a P&G ad. Someone took a P&G ad and turned it into something else. I actually thought it was some kind of deliberately misleading thing since "Protect and Gamble" is NOT Procter & Gamble, although it may look that way if you don't look closely. So I was NOT wrong. ETA and as many have already told you, it's not our job to research the facts of what you post before we argue with it as presented. 2. I will admit to just being a jerk when you do, too. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Aug 3, 2017 14:36:29 GMT
I thought the ad was awesome. It really shows in a powerful way how differently we raise our children. I am sad I have not seen this on network tv.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by Olan on Aug 3, 2017 14:39:02 GMT
Vet what I post? Maybe you should research what you say! You were wrong and can't even admit that. Again I will say the content is the same I explained how the version I posted ended up being different from the one you agree is beautifully done I acklowedge posting the ad without the text would have avoided this. Will you acknowledge 1. You could have easily found the original ad without the text introduction BEFORE posting on 2peas. You were wrong about it not being a P&G ad. 2. You are just being a jerk. 1. As you presented it, it was NOT a P&G ad. Someone took a P&G ad and turned it into something else. I actually thought it was some kind of deliberately misleading thing since "Protect and Gamble" is NOT Procter & Gamble, although it may look that way if you don't look closely. So I was NOT wrong. ETA and as many *only Nink agrees with you far from many Sarah Huckabee is that you? have already told you, it's not our job to research the facts of what you post before we argue with it as presented. 2. I will admit to just being a jerk when you do, too. The content in the videos are the same. I didn't view the video I posted because I had just tearfully sat through the original one. My bad *shrugs* If you don't want to look like an absolute fool it is your responsibility to research "the facts of what I post before you *ARGUE*. You don't have to acklowedge being a jerk. It's adundantly clear for anyone viewing this thread. *Note her word choice. Argue? Yet I thrive on conflict? Argue with it as presented....so you did in fact just wanna argue about the authenticity of the video. When another pea posted it was in fact a real P&G ad that should have sucked the argument right outta the thread yet here we are. Hahhaha |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 19, 2024 23:01:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 14:46:37 GMT
If you are trying to sway people you are missing the mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 3, 2017 14:48:49 GMT
1. As you presented it, it was NOT a P&G ad. Someone took a P&G ad and turned it into something else. I actually thought it was some kind of deliberately misleading thing since "Protect and Gamble" is NOT Procter & Gamble, although it may look that way if you don't look closely. So I was NOT wrong. ETA and as many *only Nink agrees with you far from many Sarah Huckabee is that you? have already told you, it's not our job to research the facts of what you post before we argue with it as presented. 2. I will admit to just being a jerk when you do, too. The content in the videos are the same. I didn't view the video I posted because I had just tearfully sat through the original one. My bad *shrugs* If you don't want to look like an absolute fool it is your responsibility to research "the facts of what I post before you *ARGUE*. You don't have to acklowedge being a jerk. It's adundantly clear for anyone viewing this thread. *Note her word choice. Argue? Yet I thrive on conflict? Argue with it as presented....so you did in fact just wanna argue about the authenticity of the video. When another pea posted it was in fact a real P&G ad that should have sucked the argument right outta the thread yet here we are. Hahhaha ha hahaha haha ... oh wait, you weren't joking? |
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 3, 2017 14:55:38 GMT
Olan, you are not helping your cause at all.
I'll follow your post format in the hopes that mirroring your behavior will help you understand things more clearly.
1. No one distracted anyone from the video's message. You are side-railing the conversation. You know how it could have gone instead? Olan posts youtube video. I state that I like the video but doubt it is from P&G. Olan states - oh no! I posted an incorrect link - here is the original one that P&G actually did. Peas in unison - Powerful video. Nicely done. And bonus to this exchange - people start to listen to you again.
2. It is not the responsibility of readers to check the validity of an original post. It is the responsibility of the original poster. Especially if you are trying to educate the forum.
3. You're unhinged. You need psychiatric help. Please, for the sake of society, stop mentoring your nieces/cousins/whomever until you get your head on straight.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by Olan on Aug 3, 2017 15:05:26 GMT
I thought the ad was awesome. It really shows in a powerful way how differently we raise our children. I am sad I have not seen this on network tv. I thought so too. I'm not sure if it will air on a network though I think it's a fairly new campaign. A friend said something about boycotting Proctor and Gamble products in the black community especially among older women but I had never heard of it. I just recently went paper-free |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 3, 2017 15:05:50 GMT
My bad *shrugs* If you don't want to look like an absolute fool it is your responsibility to research "the facts of what I post before you *ARGUE*. Y No, it really isn't. If you invite people to comment on something you post - make sure you're posting what you intend them to comment on. And as Jennifer pointed out, this could have gone so differently if you'd just said "Whoops..." and corrected your mistake or explained, rather than a begrudging "My bad *shrug* " too many posts down the thread. You did notice all the reactions to the actual message though, right? |
|
JustTricia
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,825
Location: Indianapolis
|
Post by JustTricia on Aug 3, 2017 20:26:14 GMT
1. As you presented it, it was NOT a P&G ad. Someone took a P&G ad and turned it into something else. I actually thought it was some kind of deliberately misleading thing since "Protect and Gamble" is NOT Procter & Gamble, although it may look that way if you don't look closely. So I was NOT wrong. ETA and as many *only Nink agrees with you far from many Sarah Huckabee is that you? have already told you, it's not our job to research the facts of what you post before we argue with it as presented. 2. I will admit to just being a jerk when you do, too. The content in the videos are the same. I didn't view the video I posted because I had just tearfully sat through the original one. My bad *shrugs* If you don't want to look like an absolute fool it is your responsibility to research "the facts of what I post before you *ARGUE*. You don't have to acklowedge being a jerk. It's adundantly clear for anyone viewing this thread. *Note her word choice. Argue? Yet I thrive on conflict? Argue with it as presented....so you did in fact just wanna argue about the authenticity of the video. When another pea posted it was in fact a real P&G ad that should have sucked the argument right outta the thread yet here we are. Hahhaha Wait. So you admit you didn't watch the video you posted? You admit you watched a video, but did not share THAT link, you shared a different link. Why? Why didn't you share a link to the video you actually watched? I don't understand how people who viewed and then questioned the validity of the video you posted are the fools and not you who posted a link to a different video than what you actually watched. This whole thread would have turned out differently if everyone would have seen the same video you wanted to share. |
|
I'd love to see the original ad.
