Hacker News Reader

Comment by mturmon | Hacker News Reader

Logically irrelevant, but also a factor for me: the product, and the ad, are trying way too hard. I have a daughter in the target age range, and I found the ad to be repellent.

It's addressing itself to adults, not kids, for one thing. And it seems to be fighting yesterday's battles. The "pink is for girls" thing has been fought out for years now. Everyone who could be convinced has been convinced.

View on HN

> And it seems to be fighting yesterday's battles. The "pink is for girls" thing has been fought out for years now. Everyone who could be convinced has been convinced.

I think this is completely untrue. Especially after seeing my nieces this past week. The more my daughter is exposed to the normalcy of colors other than pink the better.

I felt like the video was taking the wrong path. It was accepting that pink is the normal for girls, and encouraging girls to rebel against pink. Even its appeal to rebellion was shallow and stereotyped.

There is no consideration of what the kid wants, just nagging them to be a certain way by buying the product. (My daughter is not now, nor has she ever been, a pinkophile, but if she was, I wouldn't nag her to be something else. ;-)

I think it's also a hoot that they are in contempt of pink yet all their products feature purples and golds. Every princess color _except_ pink.

http://www.goldieblox.com/collections/products

It's a cultural battle. Subconscious mindshare is the name of the game. Whether people are or a can be convinced at a conscious level is more or less irrelevant- the impulses that go before rational thought are what count.

"Subconscious mindshare is the name of the game."

That's why the reactive mentality of the ad was particularly uninspiring. Dissing pink is not edgy, brave, or memorable. It's been done, it's over already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com