Verified by 
47COMMENTS
People identify actors with their roles. This is really no different than people who believe soap opera actors are really mds, that william shatner is capt kirk etc.
Alec Beall, Ph.D.
Few people know what it's like to be thrust into controversy in quite the same way as the actor who plays the "tone-deaf" husband in a recent Peloton ad. (You probably know the one but here it is).
The Peloton Husband, Sean Hunter
Source: Sean Hunter, used with permission.
Sean Hunter is an actor and elementary school teacher in Vancouver, Canada—he also happens to be one of my best friends. In real life, he's a decidedly good guy, so after reading a tweet joking that the people involved in making the commercial should be jailed and another tweet stating that there was a "100% chance that the husband in the Peloton ad is abusive," I decided to reach out.
I asked him about his perspective as someone who has suddenly found himself in the middle of a worldwide conversation about family dynamics, gender roles, and domestic abuse.
Here's what he had to say:
"In early September, I filmed a commercial for the Peloton exercise bike company. During the few days on set, I had a wonderful time working with the cast (“mother & daughter”), and the amazing crew. It was an extremely positive experience, and I was excited to see the final clip. In late November, the commercial was posted and reviews started pouring in. At first, they were well received. My acting coach messaged me after seeing the video and said that I looked great! We shared a positive discussion about my part in the commercial and her advice helped in my endeavour of becoming a better actor, as I hold her opinion highly. A few comments from my friends came in and the overall consensus was that it was awesome, one even mentioning, “I always knew you would make the big time.” I appreciated the compliments, but in my eyes it was just a small role. I was simply grateful for the experience.
But a few days ago, that all changed. Reviews from my friends stopped as the video went viral. I soon noticed that the commercial had several thousand down votes as the tweets came out and talk shows weighed in. “Absolutely 100% chance that the husband in the Peloton ad is abusive.” (@allahpundit/twitter) “She would rather be anywhere else in the world than here, in her glacial home with the husband she loathes” (Katie Way, Vice US). Commenters essentially “blasted the promotion as sexist and mocked its message” (Janine Puhak, Fox News). I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. My 5 seconds of air time created an array of malicious feedback that is all associated with my face. My friend texted me today declaring that I’m “a symbol of the patriarchy.” “We have the chance to make #PelotonHusband a meme” (@matt_clarke/twitter).
As my face continues to be screen shot online, I wonder what repercussions will come back to me. I pride myself on being a great teacher and developing actor, and I can only hope that this affects neither. I’m grappling with the negative opinions as none of them have been constructively helpful. “I think the acting was corny because it was overdramatic” (Jeannie Mai, The Real Daytime). It’s really hard to improve when all feedback goes against any type of growth. I currently sit here hoping that I’ll be able to continue auditioning for commercials without any taint, and that if my students happen to find the commercial and recognize me, they won’t think about me any different than they already know me. After all, this commercial has nothing to do with my ability to teach or who I am. Unfortunately, the problem is that viewers can mistake an actor as that person after they’ve seen them on television instead of a person given a script with no opinion on what they are being told to portray. As I continue to reflect on the commercial, I consider these thoughts: Why are people creating so many additional narratives to the story? Am I allowed to view the commercial positively after receiving such negative feedback? If recognized on the street, what will people’s first opinions be of me? The aftermath of the commercial has left me with more questions than answers, and this is only half the story. I reflect on what my co-actor must be dealing with, as she’s the other 25 seconds of the story."
References
Mai, J. (December, 2019). PART TWO: How We REALLY Feel About That Peloton Commercial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ynFsRdiNI8
Puhak, J. (December, 2019). Peloton actress from controversial commercial is now the subject of a Twitter search: 'Does she need our help? Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/twitter-peloton-actress-commercial-twitter-search
Way, K. (December, 2019). The Peloton Ad Woman Is Absolutely Not Ok. Retrieved from https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/43kjbw/peloton-commercial-holiday-advertisement
The title is unfortunate, he's just trying to make a living
Submitted by James OBrien MD on December 5, 2019 - 10:53am
Blame the writers and the agency, not the actor.
The best thing that Peloton can do right now is to embrace the controversy and make fun of themselves. Cowering away makes it worse. I think they should reshoot the same commercial with roles reversed, but with a twist. How about Roseanne Barr and say, Chris Hemsworth as a married couple and her buying him a Peloton to get in better shape?
Price
Submitted by Steve on December 5, 2019 - 2:29pm
From the Internet:
“It was interesting psychology that we teased out,” Peloton CEO John Foley recalled in an interview last year with Yahoo Finance. “In the very, very early days, we charged $1,200 for the Peloton bike for the first couple of months. And what turned out happening is we heard from customers that the bike must be poorly built if you’re charging $1,200 for it. We charged $2,000 dollars for it, and sales increased, because people said, ‘Oh, it must be a quality bike.’”
I bet they're selling more now with all of the free media.
Blame Everyone Involved
Submitted by Raymond Gunn on December 7, 2019 - 11:03am
I blame the actor too because he is (un)wittingly complicit in a narrative that can be easily interpreted as abusive. I get he's a struggling actor, but I am sure he would not accept a role that he thought demeaned him. He simply didn't think before accepting the role, and that is too bad for him. Perhaps, he has learned a valuable lesson from this experience.
Project much?
Submitted by Open Youriiiii on December 7, 2019 - 1:49pm
"you blame; he didn’t think; lesson".
1. He should have known that thin-skinned sjws would twist, ‘I’m giving my wife a gift, and she’s making a video thanking me.’ into the delusional abusive narrative crazies see it as?
2. You are sure ‘he would not accept…demean him’, so is it projection or mind-reading? You judge it as demeaning, then judge he didn’t think, then judge he should learn a lesson. This is all through YOUR perspective and values. His body, his choice.
3. The lesson: Always act in the way that can’t be construed as offensive to the crazys. Yes, you’ll never get anything done, but at least no one’s feelings will be hurt.
Q: Should a man hold the door open because he has more privilege, but demeaning an able bodied woman? Should he NOT hold it open, affirming that women are just as capable as men at opening doors; but not being an “ally”, thus earning scorn as a member of the patriarchy.
Or should he just give up, seeing a psychologist for suicidal thoughts?
Empirical Evidence
Submitted by raymond on December 7, 2019 - 2:41pm
Take a breath. I'm merely responding to the empirical evidence, which apparently shows that many people took offense to the commercial and to the actors role in the commercial. I don't know about you, but if many people indicated that they were offended by something I did or said, I would take a step back and reflect on what I said/did that drew such a reaction. I also don't refer to them as "crazies." Where in the actor's comments does he indicate that he has learned anything useful about appreciating perspectives different from his own?
It can't be navigated.
Submitted by Open Youriiiii on December 7, 2019 - 7:25pm
I’m chill bro. You insist the role was “easily interpreted as abusive” and “he simply didn’t think”. There’s a generation of people that take offense and claim victimhood to everyday things in everyday life. It can't be navigated.
Google: 'Math is racist'. (Then tell me whether it is and why, knowing that I'm a black female, so avoid doing it in a way that man-splains or white-splain's).
Also please answer my previous question:
Should a man hold the door open because he has more privilege, but this would be sexist and ableist to an able bodied woman? Should he NOT hold it open, affirming that women are just as capable as men at opening doors; but not being an “ally”, thus earning scorn as a member of the patriarchy.
Or should he just give up, seeing a psychologist for suicidal thoughts?
You're a good friend
Submitted by Purnima on December 5, 2019 - 3:42pm
He deserves to be heard, and milk this for all it's worth.
Sadly for him, I don't think it's worth more than 15 mins.
You don't need to worry
Submitted by Vin on December 5, 2019 - 5:49pm
I guarantee you people will not remember the guy who had a bit role in a commercial.
This is what we are outraged out?
Submitted by False Outrage on December 5, 2019 - 6:30pm
I can't stop laughing at how this overly-"woke" generation is tearing apart a commercial. If only this type of tweet-rage was turned into actual activism for, oh I don't know but maybe real outrage about locking kids in cages because they are brown and from south of the border. But no, we frantically type away and chastise a commercial. Its a GD commercial...remember its intended to get your attention (check), and cause you to talk about it (check), and remember their product (check). Well ya'll fell for it. I already got my Peloton years ago and I love this commercial because her face is what we who have a Peloton make when riding. The outraged "woke"rs probably haven't had a good cardio session in awhile.
Get over it people! We are on a slippery slope were people are going to stop communicating because you can't say anything without offending a delicate snowflake (and yes there are snowflakes on both side - and their tearing human interaction apart regardless of your vantage point!) #deletesocialmedia
Believe me. The problem with
Submitted by Manders on December 6, 2019 - 8:10am
Believe me. The problem with these dudes is not that they are too woke. You probably don’t realize it because its not your problem, either.
Love your comment
Submitted by MIKE on December 6, 2019 - 12:16pm
I love your comment. It seems to me that people are working on their "outrage"....not that it matters that the subject of their outrage is fictitious, it's only the "outrage" that's important.
OK boomer
Submitted by Robert on December 6, 2019 - 12:52pm
It's fine to proliferate patriarchy. It's not your problem.
LOL
Submitted by Manders on December 6, 2019 - 1:00pm
It’s not fine, it is my problem, it should be yours too, but you’re a sexist POS I guess.
Also, not a boomer. But nice try, boomer.
OK Xer
Submitted by Art on December 14, 2019 - 8:13pm
F all y'all who dis someone on the basis of when they were born.
Pelaton owes you one
Submitted by italie on December 5, 2019 - 6:49pm
It wasn't you. It wasn't your acting. It wasn't your fault.
It was a horribly written commercial, with a premise of taking you on a journey that never happened. A woman wanted an absurdly expensive exercise bike for reasons that aren't at all clear. She rides said bike. The commercial ends with no particular goal being noticeably met.
If anyone deserves shit on that one, it's Pelaton, and the writers. Embrace you're internet infamy, it's the only way to push past it.
Embrace it, there's no such thing as bad pub for an actor
Submitted by James OBrien, MD on December 5, 2019 - 8:11pm
A suggestion: he should publish a YouTube video featuring himself making fun of the situation, within the bounds of whatever no harmful acts clause he signed. Get better writers than Pelaton's agency hired.
maybe the goal was just to
Submitted by jmc on December 7, 2019 - 4:59pm
maybe the goal was just to exercise more , whats wrong with the husband buying someone he loves a gift ?
Don't Lose Sight of the Ad's Sole Purpose
Submitted by Raymond Gunn on December 7, 2019 - 6:23pm
Of course, an entirely possible narrative is that the loving husband bought his wife an expensive present that he knew she wanted and would use. The point is that Hallmark narrative is merely one of many narratives, some of which are much more frightening. That is the point of marketing and focus groups. Had the ad agency done its homework, it would have determined pretty early on that the ad's narrative could be read in a way that many people find very disturbing. Then, the ad would have been scrapped because the ad agency would know that it was not doing what it was hired to do: sell Peloton exercise bikes. The hapless actor simply got caught up in the crossfire because he was just happy to get a paying acting gig that he could show off to his family and friends. He is the face of this awful ad, and now he has to deal with it. We are all innocent until experience teaches us different.
Seems like a good advert with a nice message
Submitted by Rob on December 5, 2019 - 8:37pm
Can't see any problem with this advert, and certainly no problem with your involvement in it. There is an obvious assumption in the advert that the guy is buying the bike for his wife because she asked him for it as a present so you can infer birthday gift etc.
Then wife rides bike and is happy. Well... yeah... exercise makes you happy. So does having toned abs and toned thighs. That's why I cycle 25 miles every week, it's certainly not because I'm being coerced into cycling so my husband or wife will still love me, it's because *I* want to feel better about *me*.
Then guy smiles because his wife is happy. Well... that's just freaking terrible isn't it? We can't have *men* making women they care about happy. Nope... the only conclusion is that husband is abusive and has told wife she has to lose some weight or she will no longer be attractive, because no-one should be happily married or buy gifts for each other ever again lest you upset some upper-teens / mid twenties child on the internet.
WTF is wrong with you people? You just turned a caring scene into a horrible nightmare. If you truly see the word in terms of an oppressive patriarchy in which your husband wants to put you down and "make" you exercise then you have absolutely lost all perspective on reality. No successful 21st century husband in a western country is acting that way, and that was what was just depicted in the ad.
If you got upset by this advert, then saw an advert where the gender roles were reversed; a woman bought her husband an exercise bike and overtly slapped his bum and said, "Now you can trim some of this" and they both laugh, would you find that offensive and go off on a crazy rant?
If you would, luckily you're just overly sensitive since at least you have the sanity to be equally reactive to both adverts. If you wouldn't and you only find the female gift receiver version "offensive" you actually have lost all connection with reality.
All I can say to you is, god help you when you get married. You'll either have a spouse who lies to you to keep you from losing it all the time (eventually leading to divorce if he is lucky), is so weak he cannot operate in the real world or you've married another SJW and your whole life will be spent in a soup of mutual confirmation bias, blissfully isolated from any dissenting thoughts or ideas.
Everyone else will be listening to each other, debating real issues, shaping the world through positive caring love instead of utterly childish vitriol aimed at some poor guy who's only fault was to buy his wife a gift that she obviously wanted.
what's really hilarious
Submitted by Manders on December 6, 2019 - 8:03am
is that you identify most with the massive corporation and the fictional man here. Not that either is surprising, given that comments sections seem to be mostly an opportunity for silly people to express unexamined opinions.
Notice how...
Submitted by Rob on December 6, 2019 - 10:17am
Notice how you label people as "silly" and their views as "unexamined" when you don't agree with them? This attempt to demean others' opinions that don't align with yours just sounds petty since you have no idea how long I've spent examining my thoughts on this subject, and even worse you extend that to "most" comment sections so not just the immediate post you are responding to but to "most" others as well.
Thanks, but I don't require your validation and if you actually had anything valuable to say you'd counter my points with actual statements rather than try to devalue what I wrote as "unexamined" (evidence? analysis? anything other than a couple of adjectives?).
It couldn't be that someone sees the advert differently from you and thinks that taking offense is a ridiculous stretch. It couldn't be that the majority of people saw the advert for what it was... an attempt to sell exercise bikes.
Your first sentence has me "identifying" most with a corporation and a man (with some sort of weird implication that corporations or men are somehow negative things). I referenced the "husband" character 8 times. I mentioned the "wife" character 7 times. I mentioned the "corporation" precisely zero times. All of my references were in a positive cadence. How did you infer my "identification" with those entities? Certainly not based on the interval of their content occurrence or I surely would have "identified" with the woman as well? I spent a portion of my comment defending the "wife" character's choice of gift, but you only heard "identifies with corporations, identifies with men".
I would hazard a guess that it is your own bias driving your perception of who or what I "identify" with, not that I even accept your terminology since it implies that I have a need to place myself into a group.
Group identity is a ridiculous bottom-of-the-evolutionary-ladder way of thinking rooted in tribalism who's only outcome will be the erosion of cohesive society and mutual respect. It is destined to fail every objective reasoned examination because you can draw more and more group distinctions (black, white, brown, pink + male, female, other + conservative, socialist + ad infinitum) until you are left with what we really are... individuals in a group of 1.
Putting people into a group, especially a group based on attributes they cannot change like gender and then denouncing the group is all about elevating yourself above that group with your supposed moral superiority. Once you've established your moral superiority you can justify anything you like in the name of puritanical totalitarianism.
Bravo. Good for you.
My goodness. I seem to have
Submitted by Manders on December 6, 2019 - 10:31am
My goodness. I seem to have touched a nerve. TL; DR, my dude.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit: you, specifically, are silly and your opinions are blinkered and small minded. So, I’m going to discontinue this interaction because even if I explained it you wouldn’t understand. You may write another five paragraphs if you like. I won’t read them.
Bye now!
I will indeed
Submitted by Rob on December 6, 2019 - 11:39am
And here they are:
Like many people with no real argument to present, when challenged you simply resort to saying "my ideas are so profound you wouldn't be able to understand them", then deplatform / switch to ignore mode having never expressed your ideas at all so they cannot be exposed to challenge.
> ...even if I explained it you wouldn’t understand
Understanding and agreeing with you are not the same thing. I would have thought a being of such enormous intellect would know that.
> I’m going to discontinue this interaction
This seems pretty selfish of you because you are so intellectually superior we would all be so much better off if you detailed your profound wisdom for the whole world to behold.
I guess it's a form of online safespacing so you never need to have your "highly intellectual" mind challenged lest said challenge caused damage to your equally magnificent ego.
See folks. This is how it works now. You either agree or you are intellectually incapable; anything else is inconceivable. The rule is, if you don't agree then you obviously don't understand. Think about that for a second, what an arrogant and toxic way to conduct oneself. They think their viewpoint is so above reproach that even to question it puts you at such an implicitly low level of intelligence that you must simply be silenced and ignored.
I don't think being taught to think this way has happened by accident and ironically actually makes the people who do think like this the victims they often like to assume the role of.
Questioning, challenging, thinking, having your assertions tested and negated, forming new ones, testing those, opening up discourse. These are the traits of intelligent thought, not closed minded fragile egos.
You're so right, we should be friends.
Submitted by open your iiiii on December 6, 2019 - 1:16pm
I couldn't put it better myself. And you're especially right that this is no accident. My current theory is it's the replacement of religion in the west, because this thinking cannot be traced back to any of Americas roots, and is in direct contradiction with the founding ideals.
Interesting
Submitted by Rob on December 6, 2019 - 2:08pm
It is certainly an interesting phenomenon and I agree that it holds aspects of religion at its core like aggressive dislike and discredit of dissenting thoughts and an attempt to ostracise the perceived perpetrator/s.
There's also another parallel in that it appears to hold a personal "truth" element so that arguing against it becomes extremely personal real fast, even if you do your best not to push any buttons (which I haven't bothered with in my comments in this instance).
The fragility of the egos at play is particularly interesting because it seems that an entire generation (or more) of people across the entire western cultural sphere have been trained to believe that their feelings have some value in the face of objective reality, feelings held above fact.
I've been attempting to dissect this phenomenon for some time now, reading everything I can on both sides of the spectrum and watching all points of view, collating data on the traits and values that most commonly define the different sides.
I have also observed a common element of narcissistic behaviour with aspects of low humility in the "SJW" side of the argument where applying a challenge even in the softest form can elicit explosive rage, presumably as a defence mechanism to avoid recognising their own flawed arguments which would otherwise lead to a collapse of their ego and require a complete rebuild.
I can feel sympathy for purely narcissistic people because it is rooted in damage in formative years, they are a product of abuse. The SJW mindset is much less researched and I'm not sure where the damage has occurred yet but I'm absolutely sure that it is propagated and encouraged at university level, ironically the institutions in which they should have been disabused of the importance of their subjective ego-driven viewpoints.
Do you have any further insight? I'm completely fascinated by the whole thing. I find it a bit scary too though because at the same time as saying they promote true humanistic values they deny anyone else an opinion if it differs from them which is the opposite of all the progress we've made as a civilisation. It's a precursor to fascism.
Theory so far
Submitted by open your iiiii on December 6, 2019 - 3:21pm
Is it a precursor or something else? It definitely shares traits of fascism, though I’m unclear if it is simply ‘fascism disguised’ or other. They are fascist in their beliefs/behavior esp. to enforce them on others. There's an original sin component, "white privilege". So how does the left/society go from, “I have a dream…they will not be judged by the color of their skin”, to ‘every white person is societal and systemic privileged because of their skin’?
What happen to liberal values? Oh, those were re-defined as western capitalist patria-blah blah blah.
It’s deeper than “dislike”, it’s ‘disgust’. Very primal. See associations w/ nazis cleansing their land of jews.
“Personal truth”, exactly, look at the focus on ‘how you identify’, your identity is integrated in the belief structure, if the narrative is challenged, so is the entire basis of you. You aren’t challenging beliefs, you’re challenging: “their right to exist” (I kid you not, that is what they say).
“propagated and encouraged at university level”, that seems to be the breeding ground, but at this time it’s much worse, it’s being taught in K-8. The Grievance Studies showed that the social “sciences” have spent decades producing ideological research (instead of objective) that is then used to reinforce their preconceived views. So is this an ideological feedback loop?
They do NOT believe in ‘objective reality’, that is a “western patriarchal construct”. But instead, feelings inform reality. This is no accident. ‘1984’ is being used as a playbook.
For more, try Jonathan Haidt, Gad Saad, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson.
Yup I totally missed original sin
Submitted by Rob on December 6, 2019 - 4:43pm
Thanks for that, adding it to the trait map I'm building. Yes, white privilege... yowser. Here I am teaching my slightly brown (certainly not white) kids to see everyone as a person held equally valuable regardless of their skin tone, gender, sexual inclination etc and then we have these people telling my kids that if you are white you have oppressed someone, stolen a march on the race up the supposed patriarchy.
I couldn't believe it when I found out that in Canada they are *ACTUALLY* teaching this to elementary kids, I had to go and check that out for myself because it sounded implausible... is that what you meant by K-8? (I'm in the UK and ignorant to foreign education levels).
Imagine how that will go, "Look around kids, if you've got less melanin in your genetic makeup than the kid sitting next to you, you should feel shame. If you have more melanin you need to know the other kid is keeping you down." - And that is to 5 year olds. W. T. F.
I mean... it's so problematic I don't know quite where to start. Talk about brainwashing racism in early. How do you even define "white"? It's like they assume that white people only have kids with other white people. Should we have government-run centres where we go to determine our level of "whiteness" based on our genetic makeup?
I'd fail, but my kids are half-Thai so they'd pass and would promptly need to be educated that their dad should be considered more privileged than them and is likely keeping them down in life. Doubly so because they are female and I'm part of the patriarchy (not that you'd believe it if you saw how many times my wife puts her foot down).
Anyway, on to your other points... so:
Fascist traits, agreed. I should have been more precise with my words.
> You aren’t challenging beliefs, you’re challenging: “their right to exist” (I kid you not, that is what they say)
That is *very* interesting. So I guess their logic must go something like, "I have opinions, they make up the whole of 'me' therefore by challenging my opinions you are challenging the whole of 'me' as an entity and my right to exist as said entity."
I mean, that's an attractive proposition because they are elevating their opinions to the same level as human rights and conveying enormous power and protection to themselves in the process.
Like the Lindsey Shepard affair, they claimed that she was causing "real harm" and committing "violence" against students for playing a mainstream public broadcast clip to them. Those are pretty damning charges.
> They do NOT believe in ‘objective reality’, that is a “western patriarchal construct”. But instead, feelings inform reality. This is no accident. ‘1984’ is being used as a playbook.
Agreed no accident. I hesitate to go off the reservation and start thinking conspiracy to undermine western civilisation but this is pretty widespread, deeply infiltrated into our education and politics. Pulling this off should have taken billions in cash and 30-odd years of planning and execution if it is being orchestrated. If not, I can only see it as a consequence of high levels of freedom without corresponding responsibility to round out the personalities involved.
> For more, try Jonathan Haidt, Gad Saad, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson.
Jordan Peterson is such an excellent orator I could spend hours listening to him speak just to learn how to do it better, regardless of the subject matter... the fact he's on the side of reason and logic helps immensely though! I will check out the others you've mentioned, thanks for the suggestions!! :) - and yes, we should be friends!
perspective of a minority minority
Submitted by Open Youriiiii on December 5, 2019 - 9:33pm
This actor should go to the Patriarchy and demand a free membership upgrade. No one in the media is supporting this guy, which is really odd, because usually the media, which is controlled by the patriarchy, takes the guy's side in issues.
nobody is coming off well here
Submitted by Manders on December 6, 2019 - 8:01am
Hi, I'm an actor, and I've worked professionally since I was 16. The author has done a disservice to his friend by writing this and submitting it for print. And the actor has done a disservice to himself by expressing these views in public and showing himself to lack either the emotional resilience to deal with any criticism of his work and the sense of humor to deal with being in a rather absurd situation.
Next time, my dude, don't just look at the opportunity to do a job or get a little publicity; ask yourself how *this* job, *this* article, might reflect on your career. Complain to your loved ones over a drink, and enjoy the (hopefully decent amount of) money you earned, and wait for it to blow over. Which it will.
So the ad flopped. Just go on to the next gig...!
Submitted by Annie on December 6, 2019 - 8:04am
Hopefully, you were compensated fairly for the Peloton ad. It was not well written and very poorly directed, but you played a minor part, for sure. Just smile and go on to your next audition. You also need to remind your students and friends that entertainment and advertising have absolutely NOTHING to do with real life -- and who you are as a person. Keep in mind, too, that actors are pawns. You are being used to represent someone else's point of view, unless of course, you wrote and produced the script yourself.
Flop?
Submitted by Rob on December 6, 2019 - 10:32am
Why would you say the advert flopped? Why poorly written and poorly directed? I mean... it's an advert, it's got like 20 seconds to get a point across, it's not a shakespearean drama.
1) Husband buys wife a gift that she wanted == wife happy.
2) Wife rides bike that was gift from caring husband == wife happy.
3) Husband and wife sit on sofa and husband smiles because he got an opportunity to make his wife happy == happy husband.
4) Corporation that wants to sell you something got to sell you something == happy corporation.
People reading *anything* else into that advert beyond what I've just stated are either professional advert critics (in which case well done for finding the least useful job in the world), or they have and agenda to push and found an easy target they could use to raise said agenda above the fringe.
I'm not saying that any of that is you by the way, but it's certainly unclear why you think the writing and direction was poor.
The final cut was ambiguous and confusing
Submitted by Annie on December 6, 2019 - 11:19am
Full disclosure. I'm a professional performing artist and an early-adopter Peloton owner. I really wanted to like this ad and found the previous advertisements aloof and sterile -- too much about art direction and not enough about the product's potential impact and amazing ways people engage with it -- or their incredible stable of instructors. Re: the current ad, two things observations I had on first seeing it:
- the ambiguity in the backstory. Not sure if Grace from Boston really wanted the bike. Did she ask for it or did he think she should have it? Would have been nice to know. She says, "You got me a Peloton" the way I might say. "Oh, pot holders... , thank you..." It's just not clear who's idea this was... or why...
- add to that her demeanor which is tentative and a bit insecure about the whole thing. Who is she doing this for? It's a lot of work and she doesn't look 100% with the program (i.e. the 6 AM scene). Is she doing this to pleas him or is this really her idea, her plan, her journey?
Ultimately, it's up to the writers to provide enough material for the actors to work with, and for the director to sculpt the final product, and granted, 30 seconds is not a lot of time! I think the team missed the mark on this one as there is so much ambiguity.
My take: I think they were trying to sell to two types of buyers (givers and riders) in one spot and it backfired. If they had focused on one or the other, the story might have been told with less ambiguity.
Thanks
Submitted by Rob on December 6, 2019 - 12:39pm
Thanks Annie, very insightful. Do you think the advert’s ambiguities are reconcilable in the 20-odd seconds they have though?
I guess if I were to hear that feedback I’d put a birthday card or two in the background, maybe a birthday cake on the table?
I guess for me the thing that seems so weird is that because of the ambiguities there is a question over the motivation of the husband character though.
Personally I would fill any ambiguity with an assumption of goodwill rather than a suspicion of some misogynistic intent. What are your thoughts?
Villan or hero?
Submitted by Annie on December 6, 2019 - 1:51pm
I didn't see the husband as particularly misogynistic or controlling, but I can see where some might attribute his gift as a means of control or a desire to "remodel" his wife.
My initial interpretation of the scenario was that Grace, as a young working Mom, was short on "me" time and her husband splurged and got her a Peloton; but then she was really unsure of her ability to engage and stay with an exercise routine given her busy lifestyle. But here's where it goes off track:
I would have liked to have seen her grow a bit in confidence and excitement about the program, but the progression just wasn't there for me. She always looked insecure and, perhaps, like she was doing this under duress of some kind... or because she wanted to please her husband. In either case, those are not motives that most women want to see in advertising!
I can see how a lot of people responded negatively. As a Peloton owner I would have loved to see them capture the excitement of a ride, of getting your first shout-out, finishing your first live ride, or reaching a goal or milestone you set for yourself. Plus it's REALLY FUN most days and they didn't capture any of that for me. But they are getting their share of publicity. Luckily I am not a stockholder.
It's funny but...
Submitted by Rob on December 6, 2019 - 3:03pm
My wife LITERALLY asked me if we had space for a cross-trainer 2 weeks ago and I've spent quite some time trying to find the best model based on her requirements, so for me there is some incidental truth to the story and my bias about the ambiguities is probably predicated on my current task to find the perfect exercise machine for my wife, out of love and duty rather than any misogyny, based on a request she made.
Then I see an advert of a similar nature and fill in the gaps, husband on a quest to get the right thing, wife struggling to do the exercise but achieving it.
Hearing your rational, sane, tempered, adult description of how you can take the advert and paint a different picture has me wondering if the bias of many complainants is rooted in a bad experience where a man made such a request to them about their fitness (and ergo subjective attractiveness).
A question that I'd like to ask you but admit is not necessarily appropriate so please feel free to pass on this, is have you experienced that in the past / present with a partner and if so, would you consider that to be a common experience for women or at least perceive it to be based on your life? How many men behave this way? 1% 5% 100%?
I'm interested because I naturally gravitate toward a protector/provider role and find the idea of pressuring anyone to lose weight for my gratification awfully deplorable and harmful, and every male I've ever had a friendship with I'd lump in the same ballpark (bias there of course because I will naturally make friends with like minded individuals), I find it so alien that the idea of dating a male partner would provide enough bias for many women en-masse to "fill in the blanks" with negative narrative in the advert and create the controversy it has.
I have two young daughters and actively think and plan how to raise them with a solid psychology so that attacks on their self confidence are swatted away, but the plan has quite some time to run and I may in fact fail to achieve this. Right now there is little a long all-encompassing cuddle from dad can't solve and I dread the moment this is no longer true but accept the inevitability of it as they venture out into the world.
SO interesting... it's not what HE does,
Submitted by Annie on December 6, 2019 - 5:07pm
it's what SHE"s not saying. Can't speak for everyone else but I'm simply getting my cues in this ad from her facial expression. That's what's off takes it on a tangent for me. Not the fact that hubby bought a fancy new bike that goes nowhere for no apparent reason, but that she's so very tentative and kinda numb about the whole journey. It's the unspoken, unscripted visual of a woman who looks like she's trying to masque the fact that she's been kidnapped or being held hostage most of the 30 seconds she's on camera. Bad direction? Very possibly but all in all it doesn't add up to everyone being happy with their Peloton or looking anything like they are lucky in love. Hope this helps.
OMG
Submitted by Rob on December 6, 2019 - 5:18pm
You made me laugh so much with that: "unscripted visual of a woman who looks like she's trying to masque the fact that she's been kidnapped".
LOL. Gotcha so then the question is, why isn't the critique in the general media focussing on the bad script for the female actor, or her portrayal, rather than the "husband"?
Please refrain from further ridiculously awesome one liners, I'm trying to drink a glass of wine here! :p
I think the real question
Submitted by Manders on December 6, 2019 - 5:40pm
I think the real question here is why you are so desperate to take any focus away from the male character in this commercial that you’ve been writing lengthy comments about it all day long while drinking?
Maybe just read some of the actual critiques of the commercial?
Shorter comments
Submitted by Rob on December 8, 2019 - 6:45am
Shorter comments are easier to interpret or rather misinterpret at the reader’s discretion which is why I prefer to write longer comments and describe in detail.
I don’t agree with you that it is the “real” question but I’m happy to answer it. I am seeing a rise in anti-male commentary and I think it is bad for everyone. I don’t need to defend the female character in the advert because as far as I know, there is no large criticism of her (yet). If you find some, let me know and I’ll spend “all day” defending her as well.
Really?
Submitted by RSDA on December 6, 2019 - 6:43pm
Seriously! Who cares? Pick up a newspaper and read about what's going on in the world.
Snowflake bros
Submitted by Turtle on December 7, 2019 - 5:56pm
Lots of snowflake bros seem heated up by criticism of this ad.
The reality is the whole and sole purpose of any ad is to create an emotional response with the purpose of motivating viewers to buy.
If an ad fails to create the desired feelings as this one spectacularly has, then it has failed it's purpose for existing. End of story.
Lazy thinking is bad because it's lazy
Submitted by Noneovyabiz on December 7, 2019 - 8:46pm
The ad is bad and failed because some lunatics misinterpreted it and didn't like what their own twisted minds projected onto it because the ad is bad and failed because some lunatics misinterpreted it and didn't like what their own twisted minds projected onto it because the ad is bad and failed because some lunatics misinterpreted it and didn't like what their own twisted minds projected onto it... this is called circular logic and it's extremely lazy .. and I'm pretty sure the lunatics overreacting over this are not the types to workout anyways which mean they aren't even the target audience for the product, so who cares what they think?
Give me a break.
Submitted by Joseph P. on December 8, 2019 - 5:59am
The guy supposedly worrying about his acting career being washed up by this commercial named his Instagram account "PeltonHusband" FFS,
Peloton Husband disgrace
Submitted by jojothehobo on December 8, 2019 - 11:34am
This "disgrace" narrative is a paradigmatic example of the larger sexist narrative that dominates the media. The tsunami of abuse and reputation bashing of the Peloton man may be usefully contrasted with the media cheering of the "Toxic Masculinity" ad from Gillette. That ad had a totally unnecessary and sexist slam on men, most of whom are reminded daily by the culture to behave better. The word toxic was a sexist slam that invariably accompanies media/narrative descriptions of men. Also, almost all gender articles in the mainstream media (aka Democratic PR machine) are written by feminist women from a feminist viewpoint. I am glad and impressed that an article by a man that disagrees with the Narrative was published.
He is an agent of the Patriarchy
Submitted by Moira Shanahan on December 8, 2019 - 6:27pm
As a feminist, I must say this rapist has no place working again.
Unconscionable.
Submitted by Rob on December 9, 2019 - 9:59am
To compare the advert's theme with the action of rape is a vile misrepresentation and belittles ACTUAL rape victims by conflating being raped and being given an exercise bike, suggesting they are somehow even slightly comparable.
Call yourself a feminist if you like but you do a massive disservice to women who have been victims of actual rape. It's clear you have never spoken with anyone who's been raped and lack the emotional awareness to understand how deeply wrong what you just wrote is.
Utterly reprehensible.
Post Comment
advertisement
