What do you think of the WF ad...

[Indylady]

"Jennifer is irresistible..
your fiance wants her."


It flashes across the ad section on the top of the page fairly often, and it makes me frown every time. What do you think? Clever? Demeaning? Just awkward?

 

[Steel]

"Jennifer is irresistible..
your fiance wants her."


It flashes across the ad section on the top of the page fairly often, and it makes me frown every time. What do you think? Clever? Demeaning? Just awkward?

It entirely depends on whether your name happens to be Jennifer .

 

[Miss Sparkly]

ummm I have a dirty mind Otherwise, I'm not a fan of it but I don't hate it. It doesn't encourage me to buy from them. The worst one I have ever seen came from a local jeweler. Their banner said, "Your daugters diamond is bigger than your wifes...." I wrote them a piece of my mind about that BS!

 

[atroop711]

Haven't seen it but I'd get it since I know that many of their pieces are named. I'd want to see what "the Jennifer" looks like.

 

[Porridge]

Maybe I'm thick today but I don't get what's demeaning or awkward about it? I hadn't paid much attention to be honest, although I did check out my namesake; it's a pretty ring.

 

[Maisie]

Isn't it aimed at the girl as she is the one who will wear the engagement ring?

 

[Circe]

Badly proofread and confusing? 'Cause, honestly, who's the target market here?

Since the "Jennifer" appears to be a style of engagement ring aimed at female consumers, we have two options. If, as the grammar implies, it's aimed at women, it's saying, "Ladies, your fiance will get you this, whether you like it or not: just a heads up." Alternately, I'm guessing what they're trying to say is, "Dudes who buy engagement rings: our ring with a woman's name is so hot that even your straight-identified female partner wants it!"

Except ... a) odds are good you're not engaged yet, if you're e-ring shopping, so "fiance/e" is not quite the right word (and if you're already engaged, I'm guessing you're shopping together), and b) a woman who is engaged is a fiancee.

So! Aside from the annoyingly gendered, either women are competitive biotches or lesbianism-only-titillates-the-male-gaze nonsense, it's just stupid and wrong. Makes me think less of Whiteflash on numerous levels, and makes me less likely to buy from them. Thanks for pointing that out, IndyLady.

 

[oranges]

I always see that ad and i think that it is just awkward.

 

[Mara]

I agree I am not a fan. Nor am I a fan of naming a ring style Jennifer. Unless you KNOW it's a ring style and let's face it, only a small amt of people will, you are bound to be like WTF.

There's a local ad here that always cracks me up when I see it. It says something like (my memory is so bad right now) ... 'Marriage insurance policy' with a picture of a big diamond. Cannot remember exactly but I am always like 'What'...but then i get it.

I want to see one that says 'Cheaper than a divorce' next.

 

[atroop711]

OK I just saw the ad...seriously this annoys you? Maybe it's my old age but doesn't bother me at all. To say you wouldn't buy from them is extreme don't you think? I think many are over thinking this one just a bit. This is just my opinion and I'm sure I'm in the minority

 

[packrat]

From Ron White: "Diamonds, that'll shut 'er up"

 

[Circe]

OK I just saw the ad...seriously this annoys you? Maybe it's my old age but doesn't bother me at all. To say you wouldn't buy from them is extreme don't you think? I think many are over thinking this one just a bit. This is just my opinion and I'm sure I'm in the minority

It's not going to put a crimp in my day or anything, but, yeah, it annoys me, both on the "why do you have to promote stupid gender stereotypes level?" and on the "really? all those graphics, and you couldn't either hire a competent proof-reader?" level. One suggests someone I just don't want to give money to, and the other suggests incompetence.

Edit: P.S., I am totally aware I'm in line with this Onion piece. I just can't turn off the deconstruction! http://www.theonion.com/articles/grad-student-deconstructs-takeout-menu,85/

 

[atroop711]

OK I just saw the ad...seriously this annoys you? Maybe it's my old age but doesn't bother me at all. To say you wouldn't buy from them is extreme don't you think? I think many are over thinking this one just a bit. This is just my opinion and I'm sure I'm in the minority

It's not going to put a crimp in my day or anything, but, yeah, it annoys me, both on the "why do you have to promote stupid gender stereotypes level?" and on the "really? all those graphics, and you couldn't either hire a competent proof-reader?" level. One suggests someone I just don't want to give money to, and the other suggests incompetence.

Edit: P.S., I am totally aware I'm in line with this Onion piece. I just can't turn off the deconstruction! http://www.theonion.com/articles/grad-student-deconstructs-takeout-menu,85/

I don't see the gender stereotypes but like I said I'm sure I'm in the minority. I'm the type that's bothered by the big billboards with a half naked teen girl with 4 half naked guys..now that makes turns me off to a company because it's obvious feeding a sick fantasy..also don't think my 10 yr old or 6 yr old need to see things like this while waiting for the bus.

That's what makes this world so great...you have your views, I have mine and we don't have to agree. It would be rather boring if everyone agreed don't you think? Like living in Stepford hell.

 

[that_someone_special]

It annoys me because I think it's beyond stupid. I'm not offended or anything... But the campaign is just thoughtless... But I suppose they cant all be winners

 

[iLander]

Doesn't show respect for the customer. . .

Trying to be edgy and it's just tacky . . .

 

[atroop711]

Doesn't show respect for the customer. . .

Trying to be edgy and it's just tacky . . .

I'm interested..that's why I'm asking. In what why do you find that it lacks respect to the customer? I think it's interesting how we can look at the same ad and see diff things. Now tone is hard to read online so don't take my Q as being snarky. I'm genuinely interested in knowing why?

 

[AGBF]

Badly proofread and confusing? 'Cause, honestly, who's the target market here?

Since the "Jennifer" appears to be a style of engagement ring aimed at female consumers, we have two options. If, as the grammar implies, it's aimed at women, it's saying, "Ladies, your fiance will get you this, whether you like it or not: just a heads up." Alternately, I'm guessing what they're trying to say is, "Dudes who buy engagement rings: our ring with a woman's name is so hot that even your straight-identified female partner wants it!"

Except ... a) odds are good you're not engaged yet, if you're e-ring shopping, so "fiance/e" is not quite the right word (and if you're already engaged, I'm guessing you're shopping together), and b) a woman who is engaged is a fiancee.

So! Aside from the annoyingly gendered, either women are competitive biotches or lesbianism-only-titillates-the-male-gaze nonsense, it's just stupid and wrong. Makes me think less of Whiteflash on numerous levels, and makes me less likely to buy from them. Thanks for pointing that out, IndyLady.

I always love your postings, Circe, but I am finding this one hard to follow. Maybe because I am too angry. I didn't see the advertizement, but when I read it, I heard Whiteflash telling me, " Hey, AGBF, your fiancé finds Jennifer irresistible and wants her!" That made me want to say, "Fine. Glad he and Jennifer are getting along. I'm packing up. Rhino has great diamonds and I have a lot of discretionary income. Bye!"

Gee...Instead of, "Rhino", I had better type in, Good Old Gold unless I want to promote one vendor over another by giving only one a link!

Deb/AGBF

 

[Circe]

Badly proofread and confusing? 'Cause, honestly, who's the target market here?

Since the "Jennifer" appears to be a style of engagement ring aimed at female consumers, we have two options. If, as the grammar implies, it's aimed at women, it's saying, "Ladies, your fiance will get you this, whether you like it or not: just a heads up." Alternately, I'm guessing what they're trying to say is, "Dudes who buy engagement rings: our ring with a woman's name is so hot that even your straight-identified female partner wants it!"

Except ... a) odds are good you're not engaged yet, if you're e-ring shopping, so "fiance/e" is not quite the right word (and if you're already engaged, I'm guessing you're shopping together), and b) a woman who is engaged is a fiancee.

So! Aside from the annoyingly gendered, either women are competitive biotches or lesbianism-only-titillates-the-male-gaze nonsense, it's just stupid and wrong. Makes me think less of Whiteflash on numerous levels, and makes me less likely to buy from them. Thanks for pointing that out, IndyLady.

I always love your postings, Circe, but I am finding this one hard to follow. Maybe because I am too angry. I didn't see the advertizement, but when I read it, I heard Whiteflash telling me, " Hey, AGBF, your fiancé finds Jennifer irresistible and wants her!" That made me want to say, "Fine. Glad he and Jennifer are getting along. I'm packing up. Rhino has great diamonds and I have a lot of discretionary income. Bye!"

Gee...Instead of, "Rhino", I had better type in, "Good Old Gold" unless I want to promote one vendor over another by giving only one a link! Or is it impossible to link to Good Old Gold?

Deb/AGBF

It was the grammatical confusion wot inspired the rant - I honestly can't tell if it's deliberate or not. Given the presumed target market of men buying for women, I'm assuming it's the "Dudes, this ring is so hot" option, and they just messed up on the gender of fiance/e, thus making the message tick me off even more. But it's not like the first option leaves me smiling, either ....

Atroop, I'm definitely in the camp that different readings make the world go round, too. I don't see this particular campaign being a winner by any of them, but that's just me ... and in the meantime, we can have fun debating it.

 

[Upgradable]

From Ron White: "Diamonds, that'll shut 'er up"

 

[rhbgirl24]

I think its just fine... clever and a bit risque. But my name happens to be Jennifer so maybe thats why!

 

[AGBF]

I'm interested..that's why I'm asking. In what why do you find that it lacks respect to the customer? I think it's interesting how we can look at the same ad and see diff things. Now tone is hard to read online so don't take my Q as being snarky. I'm genuinely interested in knowing why?

It doesn't show respect for the customer if I am the customer (and I am, not not my husband). Whiteflash sends me its calendars; it doesn't send them to my husband. I buy my own diamonds. So it should pander to me, not to my husband.

If Whiteflash thinks it can imply in its ads that my husband may look elsewhere, to other women, for his affections and then take money from me, they have another thing coming! That is very disrepectful. What kind of idiot made up an ad campaign designed to denigrate women by implying that their fiancés or husbands were finding other women (like Jennifer) "irresistible"?

Deb/AGBF

 

[that_someone_special]

This hyperlinking is making me mad. Vendors can't have logos on pictures but WF and whiteflash get hyperlinks???? Grrr

 

[Kismet]

I have Ad Block Plus installed on my browser so I see no ads at all.

 

[Liane]

I just think it's ineffective and kind of presumptuous. My reading is that the ad is saying "all women want this ring! yes! all of them!!" and my response is like "dude COME ON don't tell me what I want, you don't know me."

I mean, maybe I would want the setting, I don't know, I never clicked on the ad to find out what it looks like. But the point is I'm not going to click on it, either. The ad's not effective as a come-on; it doesn't intrigue me at all. To the extent I notice it (which is not often), it's just mildly annoying.

But then I'm not really the target market. The target market is the average Rocky Talky short-term visitor: a guy who doesn't know a ton about diamonds or rings and is looking for the safest possible bet to make his intended lady happy. And for that guy, maybe it is an effective ad.

 

[somethingshiny]

I haven't seen the ad. The new PS bothered me so I learned to tune out all the distractions and just see the topics. I will watch for it and be back.

 

[Circe]

I'm interested..that's why I'm asking. In what why do you find that it lacks respect to the customer? I think it's interesting how we can look at the same ad and see diff things. Now tone is hard to read online so don't take my Q as being snarky. I'm genuinely interested in knowing why?

It doesn't show respect for the customer if I am the customer (and I am, not not my husband). Whiteflash sends me its calendars; it doesn't send them to my husband. I buy my own diamonds. So it should pander to me, not to my husband.

If Whiteflash thinks it can imply in its ads that my husband may look elsewhere, to other women, for his affections and then take money from me, they have another thing coming! That is very disrepectful. What kind of idiot made up an ad campaign designed to denigrate women by implying that their fiancés or husbands were finding other women (like Jennifer) "irresistible"?

Deb/AGBF

Well ... not to defend them, but I think "Jennifer" is the name of that particular ring model. So I'm imagining it was pitched as, dudes will find it funny, and/or any lady who sees this is initially going to think, "That rat! Going for another woman! Oh ... wait. It's a ring! For me! My paranoid fantasies about cheating are disproved, and my anger melts away with A Shiny. Teehee!" It's condescending and assumes women have the brains of Pavlov's dog, but I don't think it's meant to endorse infidelity. But, then, it's hard to tell since they screwed up the gendering of fiance/e.

 

[Indylady]

Alternately, I'm guessing what they're trying to say is, "Dudes who buy engagement rings: our ring with a woman's name is so hot that even your straight-identified female partner wants it!"

Circe, this is exactly how I read it. I can also see AGBF's reading of it, but the one above is what first came to my mind. I read it as an ad for men, with some a 'sexy' three-some-with-my-girlfriend-esque sort of angle. The words "irresistible" and "wants" make the ad especially sexual in nature. It aggravates me every time I read it.

Here's the full ad if anyone wants to see http://www.whiteflash.com/promotions/jennifer-engagement-ring.aspx...

 

[somethingshiny]

Okay, it's up now. Actually, as far as what the ad does to me, the first thing I see is "Irresistible" and an engagement ring. Maybe it's the size of my banner, but I had to focus in on it to see the "Your fiance wants her." I see it as "Hey, dude, this is the engagement ring that your girl wants. You're welcome." I don't think it's offensive or demeaning in any way, but I don't find it particularly clever. Perhaps to a man, a woman's name would encourage him to look? Or easier to remember?

 

[Steel]

I just think it is a typo and they are missing the 'e' on fiancée.

You probably wouldn't like the ad any better if I am right - but I think it is cute.

 

[AGBF]

I just think it is a typo and they are missing the 'e' on fiancée.

For a major jewelry retailer that specializes in engagement rings, it is unacceptable to misspell "fiancée". If Whiteflash did mean to put, "fiancée" rather than "fiancé" in their advertizement, they should have hired someone semi-literate! Marketing to women with that slogan would still be moronic, but would be marginally less offensive than marketing to their fiancés with it!

Deb/AGBF