Dockers trying to bring back manliness

[Woodsheal]

It's a stupid ad, but they don't care if it's stupid. They only care about one thing, and one thing only.

....Making money.....

Sometimes we forget that. The ONE and ONLY thing that the company's management cares about is making money. That might involve selling more clothes. Then again, it might involve selling off a branch of the company to someone else, and reinvesting the money in making battery-powered garden tools. It doesn't matter, there's only one measure of success, here.

Making Money.

If they make more money, they're happy, and it doesn't even matter if they sell more pants. If they sell more womens pants, because of some sort of weird anti-ad reaction, they're happy. Only one thing motivates this sort of thing, and one thing only.

Making Money.

I'm not buying any more dockers, BTW.

Why has "profit" become a dirty word these days? Private companies can't exist without it

[Alan H]

Why has "profit" become a dirty word these days? Private companies can't exist without it

Oh, I don't think that making a profit is a bad thing. I'm all for it, as long as it's done fairly. You know, no monopolies, no gross abuse of labor forces and so on. But aside from that, sure....you take a shot at the market and if you do it well, you make a profit, that's great.

It's just that sometimes people think that large companies have ethics and morals, and in fact that's not true. Some of the PEOPLE who are involved in large profitable companies have ethics and morals, but the companies themselves do not. "The Company" is a legal entity, only. "Dockers" has no ethics. The head of finance at Dockers might have an outsanding record of ethical behavior, or might not. There's a difference between "Dockers" the company and the Dockers Board of Directors, or the Dockers senior Vice PResidents.

Also, I think that as a general rule, the uppermost echelons of "leadership" in extremely large multinational companies such as Levi Strauss have no business ethics or morals, and answer to two guidelines in their professional lives:

1. make as much money, personally, as they can
2. run the company so that it makes as much money as it can

What prevents them from creating monopolies, raiding the employee pension fund, selling goods that the company doesn't actually have is the threat of getting caught, and see, if you get caught then 1.) you don't make money and in fact may have to give a lot of it to other people and 2.) that almost certainly loses the company money.

but make no mistake, the reason they don't raid the employee pension fund is NOT because of an altruistic concern for the welfare of the retired workers of the company. See United Airlines as a prime example. Funny how most of the workers of United Airlines lost the overwhelming majority of their retirement payouts, because "Management" didn't fund the company pension plan in anything but the very best years. Yet, they continued to tell company employees that funding was going in.

How could a management team DO that, and still sleep with themselves at night?

Answer: they have no ethics, and are only concerned with items #1. and #2. listed above.

Mind you, nearly all of what I am writing applies only to very large companies, usually multinational ones. Small companies where the management team actually KNOWS the people doing the work in the company are a lot less prone to this problem. It's easier to screw a large mass of faceless nobodies than to screw Joe and Sam and Edna, working on the floor, just on the other side of your office wall. In fact, honestly, I would wager that most of the United Airlines management that knew what was going on, didn't think they were doing anything bad. It probably never occurred to them that they were doing anything bad because company profitability takes higher priority than the pension plan in their value structure. I mean, the company was having some hard times and we have to make sure that the company is profitable, right? That's IMPORTANT. ....and of course if the company is profitable, then I get paid and maybe get a big bonus, which is also very important, after all, I have my kids education to pay for, and Mom needs surgery and we just had the plumbing crack in that cold weather last week, and...and...

Profit? I have no problem with profit.

But ascribing morals and ethics to large companies, or disconnected management teams is just plain silly.

[Alan H]

Can you say "thread drift"? LOL...sorry about that.

To get back on topic, I see the appeal to the Dockers ad campaign. I just think it's silly, and the fact that it's DOCKERS doing it, is even sillier.

[macwilkin]

Post deleted.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But ascribing morals and ethics to large companies, or disconnected management teams is just plain silly.

And that's the view from the left... er, west coast.

[SteveB]

This ad may tumble along very nicely... as Utilikilts has made a killing (Profit) on selling Mockers to the chaps that have been chapped by Dockers. These wearers of UK Mockers have then in some cases strapped on the tartan wool of Scotland, and have become real kilt wearers. Some of that subset have become members of this forum. This ad campaign may make X-Marks grow, and attract men to be real men and proudly wear the kilt.

Not bad at all.

[auld argonian]

Kilts...damn straight your dad wore them!

Best

AA

[CDNSushi]

Men wearing tights for fashion could be one heart beat away.

Nah, men wearing tights for fashion is already a reality. Just may not be so widespread in your neck of the woods yet.

http://www.e-mancipate.net/

Actually, for what it's worth, the models on that site look far more masculine than the average 16-25 yr old urban Japanese male anyhow. The way young men dress over here would make you shudder if you're not into skinny jeans, scarves, pretty colors (especially PINK). Pink underwear for men is VERY common here... It's all a matter of perspective, and perspectives change.

I really don't care what others wear (or don't wear). I won't look down on someone who chooses to wear neither Dockers, nor a kilt, nor patterned tights with shorts.

However, I do own several pairs of Docker-like slacks -- just not Dockers. Here in Japan, Uniqlo is easier to find and they carry my size too. Same thing, different label though.

As for this ad, I see it as, to quote the Bard: much ado about nothing. Every company needs something, and Dockers is no different. Their campaign will neither make me want to wear Dockers more nor less. Is it sexist? Oh, I dunno. If you get too hung up about stuff like this on a daily basis, you'll drive yourself into a tizzy and get your pantyhose all in a bunch.

[fluter]

"In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were REAL men, women were REAL women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri." - Douglas Adams

[Dirk Skene]

That seems like a desprate attempt at logic.