#11

Posting Freak
(09-23-2017, 04:04 AM)WayneJetski Wrote:
(09-10-2017, 07:06 PM)wyze0ne Wrote: It is kind of disturbing to me. I just don't get why this appeals to people in the realm of shaving products. The extreme branding of soaps and aftershaves (whether dark and satanic or not) is silly. Whatever they need to do to sell their stuff I guess. It doesn't appeal to me though. All I'm concerned with is scent and performance. A nicely designed label is cool, but it has nothing to do with what's inside the package and all this new stuff is just over the top, IMO. Here's another one: https://www.drjonshandcraftedsoapco.com/...-pre-order

This comment features the fact that you focus on the performance and scent of soap. However, you expand at length how you are also put off by the branding of the soap, and highlight that prominently in the reply, perhaps even more so than the thing that you identify as your true value. Someone in the position, that you state to be a core value of yours, though, is more likely to say: "I don't agree with the messaging of this soap, but I will wait to try it myself before passing judgement", or "...ditto (disagree w/ messaging), but I will wait for a consensus from my community before deciding to pass judgement". I bring this up not to be confrontational, but to bring to light our inner thoughts on soaps, scents, performance and marketing. From what I said above, the opinion I get from your comment is that you do not feel as though "evil" allusions should be made with regards to any product marketing, including smoky or darker scents. The original post was generated to get a census of the community's thoughts of this soap (Whitechapel in this case) and all of the following comments have elaborated on the individual commenters' distaste for the marketing. That is valid, fine, marketing does play into whether or not you will buy a soap. However the straw-man for this argument is that all of our soap makers should call their soaps either 'Dark' to not be offending those who might disagree with one spectrum, and 'light' to not disagree with those that disagree with the opposite side.

Personally, I think Halloween is fun. I like dark smoky scents. I understand that purchasing a dark smoky scent with a fun and correlational name will not damage my faith. In fact, I think that purchasing a soap from a maker who stands by something that they strongly believe in - while making good products along the way - strengthens my own faith. I feel bolstered by finding dedicated and talented craftsmen, and supporting them when I am interested in the scent profile (insert any peculiarity of any product) that I might enjoy, regardless of any small qualms I may have with their marketing.

I don't think anybody is saying that dark scents and related marketing are bad or that there's anything wrong with spooky halloween branding. Its that some go too far - Barrister and Mann did a wonderful job with Hallows, Leviathan and Nocturne all of which were released in the spooky fall season with dark, ominous imagery to market them but Whitechapel is based on a horrific series of crimes of the very worst kind. I don't need to go into the details but its just not something I want to think about when I'm shaving. I have no problem with P&B and I enjoy their soap but I will get my frisson elsewhere than Whitechapel. I think part of the issue is the general vs the specific. Hallows, Fougere Gothique, Blood Oath are based on the general concept of dark and spooky while Whitechapel on a specific series of crimes and while they are factually based, many people do not want to think about that at all let alone during their morning shave.

User 1429, wyze0ne, Matsilainen and 1 others like this post
#12

Member
Maryland
I'd like to clarify that I have no problem with Halloween or Gothic themed art, and I love Halloween. And I have had a person refuse to purchase soap from me because the name of my business has the word "Mystic" in it, which was a bit of a head-scratcher. But using violent imagery of a mutilated and bloody female body and the writings of a sadistic, murderous killer of women to sell a product is beyond the pale, in my opinion. What were they thinking?

Standard, Watson, User 1429 and 4 others like this post
#13
The gimmicky label cheapens a potentially good product. You can go "dark" without resorting to that kind of imagery.
I have to agree with Michelle on this one: "What were they thinking?"
I understand it is their product and they can market it the way they please, but I will pass on this one.

Watson, Marko and wyze0ne like this post
#14
Despite the fact that I listen to about a million true-crime podcasts, I can't get into the idea of a serial killer themed shave soap. I find crime stories fascinating, but get turned off if things cross over to exploitation. Feels like they have gone there.

Marko likes this post
-Rob
#15
I agree. Some labeling can be a definite turnoff regardless of what's inside.
#16
I think that being turned off by label is putting too much stock in the label. It's what inside is what counts and besides the whitechapel is no different than hallows or other labels that push the dark imagery of Halloween. But the beauty of free market is don't buy if you don't want .

I have ordered it because the scent profile sounds interesting. I do think the label is creative and plays on the lore of Jack the Ripper. But it's just lore - indifferent than movies or fiction on the subject to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WayneJetski and Matsilainen like this post
#17

Posting Freak
Well, that's marketing isn't it? They're trying to differentiate their product in a crowded space - they're hoping the label appeals to you on some level and usually it does for better or worse. Getting turned off by a label is no different than getting turned on by a label, they're trying for an effect thats why they spend time and money on label design rather than calling it "Brand" #1,2,3,... Different people draw their personal line in different places and this one crossed it for some and thats fair enough, there's always risks in a marketing campaign.

Matsilainen, wyze0ne, 773badger and 2 others like this post
#18

Member
Las Vegas, NV, USA
(09-23-2017, 06:43 AM)Mystic Water Wrote: I'm sorry, to me it's creepy and misogynistic.  Sorry I clicked on the link.
Interestingly enough, of the husband and wife team, I believe it is Sarah who designs the Phoenix and Beau labels.

Phoenix and Beau have had at least a couple of seasonal soaps that have returned for a second year. It’ll be interesting to see if this one will next year, and if so, under what kind of labeling.

(As a side note: I suppose one could argue that if soap making is a form of art, then sometimes artists like to tell stories or refer to historical events in their products. And history is plenty gruesome. I do find it curious, though, how it has become a norm for many soapmakers to release some “dark” product in the autumn. And if we’re speaking of pushing the envelope, one could also argue that Barrister and Mann’s Hallows imagery has become “darker” each passing year, most recently producing a label with the image of an actual x-ray of fatal wounds. Art, history, and vivid imagery, all waiting to be interpreted by any individual who experiences it. And we all tend to interpret things differently. Makes for interesting threads such as this one.)
Whenever I go to shave, I assume there’s someone else on the planet shaving, so I say “I’m gonna go shave, too.”
– Mitch Hedberg
#19
Whitechapel is a district in London and famous for Jack the Ripper and the unsolved murder of 11 women - all possibly prostitutes.

From what I understand, the scent and art have some historic meanings.

Marko, 773badger and Str8 Shaver like this post
#20
Whitechapel is also home to the largest known fat berg (sewer blockage caused by grease, oil, diapers, sanitary products, etc. dumped or flush down drains). Approx. 260' long and 120 tons. Certainly makes a Jack the Ripper halloween label a more logical choice for Whitechapel.

Marko and Matsilainen like this post


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)