Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rise of "toxic marketing" in the advertising industry, particularly targeting women, and questions whether such strategies are beneficial for brands or detrimental to their reputation [2] Group 1: Toxic Marketing Tactics - Tactic One: Using stereotypes to undermine women's value by portraying them as "inept" or "dependent" [3] - Tactic Two: Binding women's aesthetics to their life value, creating anxiety through a singular beauty standard [5] - Tactic Three: Using derogatory portrayals of women to generate controversy and attention [6] - Tactic Four: Objectifying women by reducing them to mere marketing tools, ignoring their individuality [9] Group 2: Reasons for the Proliferation of Toxic Ads - The repeated emergence of such ads is driven by short-term profit motives, low penalties for violations, and exploitable platform mechanisms [10] - Advertisers exploit the emotional response of anger, which leads to higher content sharing rates compared to positive emotions [10][11] - The ambiguity in legal definitions regarding gender discrimination allows companies to take risks with controversial ads [11] Group 3: Consequences of Toxic Marketing - The primary cost of toxic marketing is the long-term damage to brand reputation, as seen in the case of brands like 全棉时代 [12] - Women's awareness and activism against such marketing tactics are increasing, leading to a shift in consumer behavior [13] - The prevalence of offensive advertising is harming the overall health of the advertising industry, leading to a "race to the bottom" in creative quality [14] Group 4: Moving Towards Respectful Advertising - The advertising industry is urged to abandon toxic marketing strategies and embrace ethical practices that respect women as equal consumers [16] - Successful brands are beginning to shift their marketing strategies to reflect genuine respect for women, as evidenced by珀莱雅's campaign [16] - A healthy advertising ecosystem requires both industry accountability and consumer vigilance against offensive content [16] Group 5: Final Thoughts - The article emphasizes that advertising should focus on building value consensus rather than perpetuating gender conflict [17] - The ultimate goal is for advertising to recognize and celebrate women's independence and intelligence, fostering a win-win situation for brands and audiences [18]

Group 1 - The controversy surrounding the advertisement for "Peach Li Egg Mooncake" highlights the disconnect between the company's marketing approach and consumer sentiment, leading to public backlash [1][3] - Peach Li's recent financial report indicates a decline in both revenue and profit, with a revenue of 2.611 billion yuan, down 13.55% year-on-year, and a net profit of 204 million yuan, down 29.7% [3] - The company's marketing expenses have significantly increased, with advertising costs reaching 42.96 million yuan in the first half of 2025, a rise of over 40% compared to the same period in 2024 [4] Group 2 - There are concerns regarding the quality of Peach Li's products, as indicated by a recent food safety inspection that found non-compliance in one of its products, highlighting a potential disconnect between increased marketing spending and product quality [6] - The incident serves as a reminder for food brands that maintaining product quality is essential for long-term success, regardless of marketing efforts [6] - The company must balance its marketing strategies with a commitment to food safety and quality to regain consumer trust and favor [6]

Core Viewpoint - The advertisement for "Peach and Li Mooncake" by Peach and Li Bakery has sparked controversy due to its provocative wording, leading to its removal shortly after launch [1][3]. Group 1: Advertisement Controversy - The advertisement claimed, "Some say five-nut is not tasty; we believe that is because you are still young and have not fully experienced life's hardships" [3]. - Some netizens criticized the ad for being preachy and lacking logical coherence, questioning whether it was meant to please or offend consumers [4]. - The company acknowledged the backlash, stating that this was their first attempt at an open internal co-creation mechanism, involving colleagues of various ages to create diverse content [4]. Group 2: Company Response and Future Actions - Following the controversy, the company expressed regret and committed to improving its review processes to balance creativity with careful oversight [4]. - As of September 5, the five-nut and red bean mooncake flavors were reported to be out of stock on the company's JD flagship store, indicating a potential impact on sales despite the controversy [5]. Group 3: Industry Context - The incident reflects a broader trend where multiple brands have faced backlash for "offensive marketing," highlighting the need for brands to respect consumer sentiments while pursuing engagement [6].