https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4c wzC5UydQ Thoughts on th

>Let's make fun of those pretentious, snarky people who pretend to have gluten allergies
>Retard: "Oh, naturalists?"
>Lets go with that. Who should we cast to sell OUR products?
>Retard: "A pretentious, snarky woman?"
>That works!

>>8156560
The kind of person who buys Hormel products doesn't give a fuck and is somewhat proud of that fact. Otherwise they'd be buying something better than what Hormel has to offer. Their target audience is the kind of people who make fun of others for being wealthier and better educated than they are, and think they're clever for doing so, because such people obviously waste their money on Emperor's New Clothes kind of stuff. The commercial clearly references that, in fact.

I'd say it good marketing. Maybe a little cruel to tell stupid people they're clever for choosing your shoddy product, but hardly anything new.

>>8156587
>The kind of person who buys Hormel products doesn't give a fuck and is somewhat proud of that fact.

I think that makes perfect sense. It's like the guys here who feel defensive over Taco Bell. I'm okay with liking Taco Bell, but not defending it to the point of attacking others for not liking it or even calling them pretentious for not eating there.

That's what Hormel's doing.

I really want to see people get in an uproar over these commercials though. I'd tweet or post it on reddit if there's a right place, else oh well. It'd just seems like a way to go after a company that serves garbage. I mean this is an opening.

File: lol.png (643KB, 822x450px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 822x450px

Would any naturalist go crazy for the food on this table, knowing it was made by Hormel?

>haha they eat natural food
>commercial produced in America
Make sure sense.

>>8156593
>I really want to see people get in an uproar over these commercials though.
I think that's the kind of energy the ad agency is trying to feed on - the same shit that's energizing the right wing side of our politics at the moment. Because those leaning left aren't likely to be consuming a lot of Hormel products unless they're really not paying attention to what they eat.

This is a very election year campaign.

File: hormel-beef-tamales.jpg (40KB, 500x262px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x262px

>Company that sells disgusting food is desperate for money

hormel canned corned beef hash is god tier breakfast food

>>8156587
This. It's marketed to Trump supporters, basically.

File: HORMEL-Chili-with-Beans.jpg (166KB, 400x496px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 400x496px

>>8156620

What's so "disgusting" about it?

>>8156832

What's that? The ingredient list? Are you suggesting that it's impossible to mix those ingredients together and have a meal that is "disgusting"? That seems to be what you're implying, by posting that and questioning what's disgusting about something that looks and tastes like >>8156620

>>8156832
>990.0mg Sodium
>What's so "disgusting" about it?

File: 1474405973582.png (463KB, 541x498px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 541x498px

>>8156560
>who says china's winning

>>8156902

it's salty. it's a preserved food. this is normal. it's always been normal. salt isn't bad for you unless you're an old person.

>>8156957
The question isn't if it's normal, the question is why it's disgusting. A preserved Hormel foods product is pretty disgusting, I'm not sure what the ingredient list proves. "Disgusting" is subjective, of course, but I want to know why it's being argued that it isn't with an ingredients list and "it's normal for preserved foods to have this much sodium".

>>8156968

it's not 'disgusting'. disgusting can only be objectively applied to things that are diseased, poisoned, toxic, etc. it's a processed, but perfectly edible food product, that many people eat and enjoy.

without going into the territory where i doubt your motivations for calling it disgusting, you have no real right to do so.

>>8156988

Why would you assume me referring to Hormel's food as "disgusting" was meant to be objective? Do you normally use the word 'disgusting' in an objective sense?

What is going on here? Am I being taken for a laugh or have you seriously been assuming that I was trying to use the word "disgusting" objectively?

>>8157003

i'm saying back the fuck off of hormel products

>>8156587
It's just a poorly written parody of suburbanites. Your post is embarrassing.

File: compleatsroastbeef2.jpg (26KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 450x338px

>>8157007
Whoa shit man I didn't know Hormel was your thing

A man's gotta have his guilty pleasure, I feel it

>>8157009
Come on. This shit is thought out in meetings.This script went through countless revisions by people whose careers rest upon the success of the ads they make. Look at the set up. The cultured hostess fails to realize naturalist means nudist, because in America the term was used to refer to John McPhee reading, Appalachian Trail hiking, birdwatching park ranger types. The set up for her misunderstanding making her seem so out of touch is the author and thespian condescendingly calling Americans smart and making the comment about China "winning". Because the viewer knows someone like her doesn't buy Hormel products in the first place - she's a send up of a Whole Foods shopper trying to act like a "normal" person.

And the next thing you know her house is full of naked people. See, everybody? She thinks she's so much smarter than you and look what happens to her! Even calling the guy's dick a lightbulb references a kind of resentment over the change to more efficient (and expensive) lightbulbs over the last bunch of years - something a real segment of Americans are actually resentful about.

So the situation we're left with is a pretty brazen Emperor's New Clothes reference as our elitist host embarrassingly misses the point trying to connect the product with the target market. Of course you the viewer are much smarter than she is because you know who the real target market for Hormel products is - it's you!

Why make a commercial like this? Because you're introducing a slightly more upscale line of products with "natural" and "no preservatives" as selling points. You want to launch this product line without alienating the people who buy pepperoni sticks and canned chili from you. So you make a commercial that pokes fun at the out of touch people who would never buy those things, sending the message they don't know any better than anybody else.

Playing into the current polarization the election highlights.

Just came to say Judy Greer a cute. That's all.

>>8157007
>White knightting for a corporation that sees you as a disposable consumer

Murga

>>8157009

>parody of suburbanites

There's a huge difference between that and clumping everyone in with "suburbanites".

Nothing screams American processed food products than a commercial adding a negative stigma to naturalism.

>>8158425
This. If they were honestly targeting suburbanites the lead female character would have been a busy mother feeding her kids these Hormel products because not only are they convenient and wholesome, but they're also natural and have no preservatives. But that's not what we get here. We get the apparently single woman with a successful career in the arts hosting what she expects will be a group of environmental advocates, then she gets something other than what she expected. To sell processed meat? We're clearly within the realm of satire/mockery.

File: ppp.png (81KB, 613x121px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 613x121px

Are there shilling in the comments or just strange people?

Commenting like that in response to that ad is like me finding a commercial of Banquet brand frozen dinners on YouTube and saying how much I love it.

>>8158742
kek

>>8157481
I didn't watch the commercial, but this is the most lucid thing I've ever read

>>8157481
That's some good insights you've got there, anon. Sounds feasible.

>>8160757
>>8160771
Thanks. I've worked in the entertainment business so I've been around storyboards. and writers' meetings. I imagine advertising is more intense because you're working in seconds, not minutes. So I figured every word of that script was labored over to send a specific message that reflected the ad company's angle that won them the deal in the first place. I'm sure someone felt like a genius when they came up with that line about Americans being smart and the Chinese winning. And someone else immediately questioned whether or not that was going too far.

>>8160825
I wish advertisements were more real, and less focused on deceiving people. Especially with food, that's where people should be completely honest. And medicine.

>>8162292
>food, that's where people should be completely honest.
If someone made completely honest ads for Hormel products the company would be out of business and there'd suddenly be a lot more vegetarians running around. Advertising is about selling stuff, not presenting factual info. The only info you get in this ad is that the product is natural (meaningless) and has no preservatives (a stretch, because you know that shit is salty as fuck, but whatever).

This ad is about reducing customer anxiety over an option labeled "natural" and "no preservatives". The target customer is someone who likes the idea of buying such products, but hates being associated with the kind of people who make a fuss about prioritizing such values. Someone who wants to eat a little healthier, but wouldn't be caught dead in a Whole Foods (or any place where people walk around carrying yoga mats). The kind of person who has a knee jerk reaction to words like organic, cruelty free and vegetarian, but would consider a healthier option as long as it didn't make them one of those people - someone who might lean too liberal or sympathize with PETA. So here's Hormel selling their product my mocking a caricature of what their customers mock when it comes to food choices.

It's kind of clever while still coming off as relentlessly lowbrow. In the bigger picture the launch of this product line is probably an attempt to undercut Boar's Head's market dominance in deli meats. If Hormel can convince you their product is just as good and you don't have to stand in line at the deli counter to get it some customers may opt for Hormel. And those customers who were buying the cheap shit to begin with might be willing to pay a little bit more for what they perceive as a healthier (but still not threatening) option. Hormel knows they have no shot with a more upscale crowd, so alienating them in their ads won't hurt sales.

>>8163121
You really do work in this industry. That's way more thought put into this ad than I feel anyone should have.

>>8157003
most people use disgusting in an objective sense. you're not fooling anyone by moving the goalposts lol

>>8163121
Very enlightening posts on advertising, marketing and brand recognition. Do you think McDonald's and similar low-end brands rely on these marketing tactics to appeal to consumers looking for better products at a lower than premium price?

>>8163143
That's not much thought at all. It's just what ran through my head while watching the ad. When you hang with people who make this stuff for a living you watch with an eye toward how it was made. I have lots of friends in the music and animation industries as well, and what I'm thinking when watching cartoons or listening to music is pretty analytical because I've worked with them and know how that stuff is created.

The only other thought I have about this ad is that they had to keep it dumb so it didn't come off condescending. The team who made this ad are creative types who do not buy Hormel products. They were pretty much mocking their own kind. The slightest bit of sympathy shown to more highbrow sensibilities would have come off as condescending. It had to come off like a variety show comedy sketch form the 60's or 70's - familiar in a retro way, but not in a smart way.

And I think that's part of what rustled OP's jimmies about it. My guess is OP does not buy much in the way of Hormel products, if he buys them at all. Someone in that demographic would have a different read on this commercial. They would see it as mocking them (which it is) while being disingenuous (which it certainly is). But by playing into prejudices the target audience already has they're not likely to see it that way. That's what makes it almost political in nature, which is intriguing, but hardly a surprise given what's happening in America right now.

>>8163174
McDonald's has a fuckton of history behind it as far as branding and advertising are concerned. It won the middle class over by positioning itself as a wholesome place to bring the family - it was modern and hygienic - and there was no tipping, which was a source of anxiety for people not used to eating out often. It was heavily marketed as a place for kids.

The problem was that the next generation came along and was anxious about their kids consuming too much fat, sugar and salt. For them McDonald's became they symbol of what not to feed your kids. To keep market dominance they introduced the Value Menu, because they knew price sensitive customers were much less concerned about such things.

The problem was that turned a brand that had formerly been associated with the middle class into one associated with the lower middle and the poor. In America they pretty much lost the middle class. Think about it: an office worker eating a Chipotle burrito at their desk during lunch wouldn't raise any eyebrows. But that same guy eating a Big Mac and fries with a large soda will come off as poorly educated and having bad taste - probably someone who is going to be as much of a future health risk as a smoker.

McDonald's has yet to recover from that stigma, and in the domestic market they may never. Their business model is way out of touch with modern middle class tastes. And a lot of middle class people are uncomfortable being surrounded by the kind of people who work and eat there.

No ad campaign is gonna fix that.

>>8156560
Isn't "naturalist" another word for nudists and not...whatever you think it is...? I mean they're just doing some word play here, I'm not seeing any mockery...

>>8163527
IN the 20th Century the term naturalist was used in America to mean amateur environmentalist. People who read books like Progress for a Small Planet and Silent Spring, spent their fee time hiking, camping and birdwatching and tended to be active supporting ecological political causes. Back then the term "nudist" referred to people who enjoyed hanging out naked, though in Europe the term for them has always been naturalist.

>>8163557
So yeah, it's just doing word play. I'm not sensing the mockery here...

>>8163586
There's a lot of mockery, but it isn't directed at "naturalists". It's directed at the lead character, a successful creative type who thinks she's so clever buying "natural" meat to serve what she thinks is a group of armchair environmentalists.

I broke it down here: >>8157481
Of course the target audience for this commercial generally doesn't have that much love for environmentalists in general...

>>8163121
>If someone made completely honest ads for Hormel products the company would be out of business
>cheap
>shelf stable
>good enough

Yeah... They would totally go out of business...

>>8156786
holy fucking shit

I hate trump

SO
FUCKING
MUCH

If I go 5 seconds without telling someone how much I hate trump

I'LL EXPLODE!

FUCKING TRUMP!

>>8156786
WTF I hate Trump now!

>>8164330
The trade off for that cheapness and shelf stability is awful conditions under which the animals are raised and processed. If that were part of the commercial people wouldn't want to eat that kind of meat at all. As for
>good enough
the question is good enough for what? Seriously, that shit is not good enough for me to want to eat it. If it's good enough for you, enjoy.

>>8164482
>If that were part of the commercial people wouldn't want to eat that kind of meat at all.
You see cruelty, I see efficiency. More efficient products are better.

File: 1458011406227.jpg (90KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x450px

>>8164338

File: grasped.jpg (59KB, 536x800px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 536x800px

>>8164905

hormel foods make me shit a dark black jelly

not sure whats going on over there

>>8164888
Holy fuck you're edgy. kys

>>8164888
>More efficient products are better

You are literally the cancer killing planet Earth. This mindset of corporate greed is everything that's wrong.

>>8165105
>You are literally the cancer killing planet Earth.
There is finite energy that the earth receives annually.
In order to live sustainably we must make the net energy expenditure less than that which we receive from the sun (taking into account energy loss due to non-perfect efficiencies)

Economies of scale has more to it than just being more efficient in terms of time and materials, there are also energy savings.


Large scale free market production is what will save humanity.
Short of killing all shitskins, preventing/reverting their development, or building a dyson swarm, the only way to sustain our lifestyles is to maximize and increase energy efficiency.

>>8165948
>Large scale free market production is what will save humanity.
That's an article of faith. Large scale production has been shown to make fortunes and lift people out of poverty. But the very idea that humanity can be "saved" or even needs to be is nonsense.

And when it comes to quality large scale production always undercuts it in favor of profits. The products gravitate toward the meanest versions possible. That's not such a big deal with stuff like toilet paper shampoo, but when it comes to food it's a much bigger deal. You can anoint Hormel meat products and Wonder bread as your personal saviors but I'll give that shit a pass. Because as long as substantially better stuff is available that's what I'll be eating, and my dollar votes will support better food products.

>>8165970
>But the very idea that humanity can be "saved" or even needs to be is nonsense.
We are short sighted and are consuming at an unsustainable rate. Our choices are either to use up easy energy at the rate we do now until it is not longer economically viable and we are forced to revert to near pre-industrial living standards.
Or we can limit the amount of humans, stop the development of any other people, limit energy waste, and increase efficiency.
I prefer a humanity in the form of a trillion or two with high standards of living than a couple dozen trillion with paleo-era standard of life.

>And when it comes to quality large scale production always undercuts it in favor of profits.
Betamax.png
The better product isn't typically what people want. People want good enough for cheap enough.

>but when it comes to food it's a much bigger deal.
Are there parasites?
Is it tainted?
Is there foreign material in it?
Beyond a basic level of quality, it doesn't matter.

You're arguing over what the impact on taste and aesthetics related to preparation methods, not the actual quality of the food.

>Because as long as substantially better stuff is available that's what I'll be eating, and my dollar votes will support better food products.
That's up to you. You're free to do so. I don't mind if you do so as long as you don't try to legislate away my ability to consume and purchase efficiently produced food.

>>8165994
It's cute that you think the choices we make really matter, and everything will just magically be OK if everyone can agree to some sort of clear headed, rational decision making. It has never worked that way in the past, so there's no reason to believe it ever will. The idea that we actually have choices in how we behave falls apart when you pull the lens back from the individual and look at the group, at which point people pretty much all act the same way, and it isn't rational in an Enlightenment way.

Have you studied population dynamics? Populations expand exponentially until they hit a limiting factor, usually disease, famine or environmental degradation. Do you think we're so clever that we're somehow immune to that? No matter what lovely advances we put into place I can pretty much assure you that sometime over the next 50 years the fucking flu is going to take out hundreds of millions. Who knows where the next world war will leave us?

You can keep your hopes for some grand future brought to you by our corporate sponsors. I'm not buying it. All I care about is culture, and food is part of that along with art, literature music and the like. That's really the only relevant shit we do. That's the only stuff that stands the test of time. That's the only truly human endeavor. Applying a good enough for cheap enough bottom line to culture is undercutting your very humanity. Like I said it's fine for toilet paper, but when it comes to something like cuisine you're discounting culture, which is the most important thing we do. I'll have none of that.

>>8166061
>the next world war

I can't really see that happening nowadays.

>>8166109
Smirk. Said Neville Chamberlain.

>>8166109
Who knows?. It could spill out of Syria next year. Regardless there WILL be another killer flu pandemic before too long. Because that's what happens when you have large populations interconnected.

My point is that Industry is great for lifting people out of poverty while making fortunes for a very few. But when it's left to take the place of culture it does a shit job. Replace cheese makers, salami makers, wine makers and bakers with industry and you're left chomping on a Hormel pepperoni stick while making a grilled cheese on Wonder bread with Kraft singles and washing it down with a glass of Barefoot Moscato. Maybe with a slice of Betty Crocker semi homemade cake for dessert. And that's some seriously degraded shit. Go to the parts of the country where this shit is common and you find there is practically no cuisine to speak of, because it's been replaced by industrial products. The people have had an important aspect of their culture cut off at the knees.

Industry can accomplish some noble shit, but it only fucks up food. Have you ever even tasted a chicken that wasn't an industrially raised Cornish Cross fed almost entirely on corn and soy? If not then you've never really tasted chicken.

>>8166225
>Because that's what happens when you have large populations interconnected.
You're ignorant.

Epidemics really only happen when the species barrier is crossed. Civilized people don't have enough contact with large animal populations for it to matter.
The third/second world is the source of epidemics and communicable disease.

>My point is that Industry is great for lifting people out of poverty while making fortunes for a very few.
That_Not_That_But_That.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw


>Replace cheese makers, salami makers, wine makers and bakers with industry and you're left chomping on a Hormel pepperoni stick while making a grilled cheese on Wonder bread with Kraft singles and washing it down with a glass of Barefoot Moscato.
You know diminishing marginal utility can be applied to more than just quantity, it can also be applied to quality. Next to no one is willing to pay twice as much for a negligible/mild increase in quality/taste.

Besides artisan goods are memes. The human hand adds no real value, the entire process could be CNC'ed and you would have the exact same production, better consistency, and cheaper prices.
Why would you give a shit if a microbrewery has a brewmaster, when the beer produced would be the same either way?

>Go to the parts of the country where this shit is common and you find there is practically no cuisine to speak of, because it's been replaced by industrial products.
So... arctic research stations?
Name one place where they don't sell meat, eggs, milk, and flour. Because with those you can make just about anything.


>Industry can accomplish some noble shit, but it only fucks up food.
I disagree. An informed consumer base that pays attention to value and unit price results in quality food and low prices.
Artisan goods have no such mechanism because the people who buy them don't really care about price.

>chicken
Yeah, tasted the exact same.