Black Twitter Is Upset Over Controversial Shea Moisture Ad

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
Kat;c-9745197 said:
Undefeatable;c-9745194 said:
TheGOAT;c-9744252 said:
I mean....

jesse-williams-wife.jpg


Or

f8e52e146182c7deb1266be18cde9bbf--minka-kelly-and-dresses.jpg


tumblr_lwn1al6jXR1r79nqko1_500.gif

So ppl really surprised he left his wife for a slimmer, more attractive woman?

The fact is that his wife let herself go. She deserves some of the blame for this.

Marrying black shouldn't have to mean marrying fat (after a kid or two). Black women need to better maintain their figures.

wtf..she had a baby like 5 months ago!

Sweet jesus..ugh.

I could cut her some slack if she recently had a child. But in fact she had her last child in Oct 2015.
 
So I was off by a couple months. In sickness and in health, for better or for worse. This means nothing to a man who proclaimed black women deserved better?

Like I said, marriages end every day. They don't have to end with betrayal and hypocrisy. He's wrong here, bottomline.
 
Madame_CJSkywalker;c-9743637 said:
Olorun22;c-9743629 said:
Are you going to explain why? Or are we going to play the guess game....

i'm guessing its the prominence of models who don't look like their largest consumer base

that said...as long as they don't change the formula of the products, i'm good

already hard enough finding products for my hair that are fairly accessible =I don't have to but online/go to some Korean owned beauty supply store

I remember when Kinky Curly (and another Black hair product whos name escapes me at the moment) got picked up by Target some years ago. My wife nearly lost her shit 'cause the only place to get it in metro PHX was at a Whole Foods in Tempe a good 30 miles from where we lived. We had a Super Target down the way from the crib so instead of me having to make a 20 minute detour out of the way when I got off work to go re-up it was something we could grab while getting groceries.
 
back on that note my house is full of carols daughter, shea moisture, and mixed chicks shit

I have no idea who makes/owns any of that shit (even tho I would assume they were black) and it really doesnt cross my mind when purchasing

I just buy what works

that commercial was just.....odd
 
Kat;c-9745230 said:
So I was off by a couple months. In sickness and in health, for better or for worse. This means nothing to a man who proclaimed black women deserved better?

Like I said, marriages end every day. They don't have to end with betrayal and hypocrisy. He's wrong here, bottomline.

man stop kat lol

for better or for worse?

lemme whoo sah real quick
 
D. Morgan;c-9751339 said:
@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?


So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.
 
Last edited:
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751514 said:
D. Morgan;c-9751339 said:
@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?


So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.


y'all aint loyal.

women are as loyal as their options.

had it been some comp...would y'all really be this pressed? no.

chicks need to stop with that you built shit...

how many dudes invest in tits. dinners and trips an y'all walk away laughing cuz the guy played himself in yalls eyes when he was only trying to court you? but then claim aint no good black men. do the guys y'all laugh at after y'all used them ..was they no good as well?

we can flip this many ways...
 
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751514 said:
D. Morgan;c-9751339 said:
@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?


So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.


So they forgot about y'all by putting out one commercial that had people of another race in it? How exactly were they supposed to reach those other markets without attempting to appeal to them.
 
The Lonious Monk;c-9751531 said:
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751514 said:
D. Morgan;c-9751339 said:
@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?


So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.


So they forgot about y'all by putting out one commercial that had people of another race in it? How exactly were they supposed to reach those other markets without attempting to appeal to them.


I'm sure the company will survive but I also expect it'll suffer in the interim while it rebuilds trust. Tough titty. From what I've seen of the marketing team, they're too far removed from black hair to really understand how what they put out was so tone deaf. I'm not sure how they're gonna pull it back, but I hope they do.
 
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751543 said:
The Lonious Monk;c-9751531 said:
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751514 said:
D. Morgan;c-9751339 said:
@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?


So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.


So they forgot about y'all by putting out one commercial that had people of another race in it? How exactly were they supposed to reach those other markets without attempting to appeal to them.


I'm sure the company will survive but I also expect it'll suffer in the interim while it rebuilds trust. Tough titty. From what I've seen of the marketing team, they're too far removed from black hair to really understand how what they put out was so tone deaf. I'm not sure how they're gonna pull it back, but I hope they do.


It's my understanding that they had like 30 commercials and 8 of them including the one that caused all the problems weren't centered around black women. Is that really being tone deaf, or is it just underestimating the need black women seem to have to always be the focus. I mean I get that nobody wants to be abandoned by something they've supported, but did the company really abandon ya'll by releasing one commercial that wasn't meant for ya'll. I could be missing something, and if so I'm sorry, but this just seems like a huge overreaction right up there with threatening to boycott K. Dot because he doesn't like photoshopped women.
 
The Lonious Monk;c-9751613 said:
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751543 said:
The Lonious Monk;c-9751531 said:
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751514 said:
D. Morgan;c-9751339 said:
@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?


So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.


So they forgot about y'all by putting out one commercial that had people of another race in it? How exactly were they supposed to reach those other markets without attempting to appeal to them.


I'm sure the company will survive but I also expect it'll suffer in the interim while it rebuilds trust. Tough titty. From what I've seen of the marketing team, they're too far removed from black hair to really understand how what they put out was so tone deaf. I'm not sure how they're gonna pull it back, but I hope they do.


It's my understanding that they had like 30 commercials and 8 of them including the one that caused all the problems weren't centered around black women. Is that really being tone deaf, or is it just underestimating the need black women seem to have to always be the focus. I mean I get that nobody wants to be abandoned by something they've supported, but did the company really abandon ya'll by releasing one commercial that wasn't meant for ya'll. I could be missing something, and if so I'm sorry, but this just seems like a huge overreaction right up there with threatening to boycott K. Dot because he doesn't like photoshopped women.


What you mean "the need black women seem to hav to be the focus?" That's exactly what the product has been since its inception. There's no reason to market directly to other women. Why? Because white hair care does not, yet they still get tons of women of color to use their product. Can't have shit to ourselves. He did all that mumbling and stumbling in that interview just to in a round about way say that white investors are changing his purpose. The commercial was fuckin stupid and that's really what it boils down to. He better figure out how to not alienate the people who fattened his pockets for years or good luck to him!

 
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9743726 said:
Black twitter is not upset. Just vocal. I'm sure there would be opinions if the face of 360 style or whatever shit y'all wear to do waves was a white guy. People are dragging Shea Moisture because they see the writing on the wall and this conversation with them has been had before. People need to understand that folks are leaving Shea Moisture in favor of other BLACK OWNED hair care lines that don't alienate their base. More power to em!

VulcanRaven;c-9743817 said:
Shea moisture is sold in Wal-Mart, Target, Rite Aid etc.. Who the hell thought only black people were their customers? I would market to whites and everybody too. This is a product. It's dumb to be vocal about this when all the products you buy are owned by none blacks and you shop at none black owned retailers, eat at none black restaurants, drive none black owned cars, wear none black owned clothes and pay for none black owned services. Black twitter can shut the fuck up and step back into reality.

Black Twitter is mainly run by a bunch of Boujie ass I wish I grew up in the hood classism "I'm woke but I love gentrification" blinded niggas. That shit is funny but some of the main folks there are so out of touch its hilarious. Outside of a couple former IC folks who got some followings most them niggas are the epitome of the annoying ass social justice warriors people complain about who tweet but rarely do shit outside that app
 
Last edited:
The Lonious Monk;c-9751613 said:
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751543 said:
The Lonious Monk;c-9751531 said:
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751514 said:
D. Morgan;c-9751339 said:
@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?


So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.


So they forgot about y'all by putting out one commercial that had people of another race in it? How exactly were they supposed to reach those other markets without attempting to appeal to them.


I'm sure the company will survive but I also expect it'll suffer in the interim while it rebuilds trust. Tough titty. From what I've seen of the marketing team, they're too far removed from black hair to really understand how what they put out was so tone deaf. I'm not sure how they're gonna pull it back, but I hope they do.


It's my understanding that they had like 30 commercials and 8 of them including the one that caused all the problems weren't centered around black women. Is that really being tone deaf, or is it just underestimating the need black women seem to have to always be the focus. I mean I get that nobody wants to be abandoned by something they've supported, but did the company really abandon ya'll by releasing one commercial that wasn't meant for ya'll. I could be missing something, and if so I'm sorry, but this just seems like a huge overreaction right up there with threatening to boycott K. Dot because he doesn't like photoshopped women.


my biggest concern is/was the formula

shea moisture, as a product, has used ingredients specifically formulated for blk womens’ unique hair challenges. so assuming they changed it with the intent of attracting a larger or rather lighter consumer base is disappointing to say the least. especially considering how few hair care companies offer natural products specifically formulated for our hair

as far as the ad goes, it was tone deaf. the company is just not any company. it was created by blk people for natural hair at a time when the natural hair movement was regaining steam with blk ppl but most major hair care brands/lines were not on board. so suddenly having a company that initially championed natural blk hair have advertising that features white women, who are already over represented in the hair care market, is jarring and is going to understandably illicit a strong response

they can and have the right to focus on their bottom line all they want, but it doesn’t mean the reactions to their decision are any less reasonable or valid or dumb

and expound on this notion that blk women seem to have to always be the focus? are you speaking in a general sense? before you answer, consider first that blk women, being double minorities, have historically been ignored and disenfranchised by just about every institution of society
 
Last edited:
obnoxiouslyfresh;c-9751633 said:
What you mean "the need black women seem to hav to be the focus?" That's exactly what the product has been since its inception. There's no reason to market directly to other women. Why? Because white hair care does not, yet they still get tons of women of color to use their product. Can't have shit to ourselves. He did all that mumbling and stumbling in that interview just to in a round about way say that white investors are changing his purpose. The commercial was fuckin stupid and that's really what it boils down to. He better figure out how to not alienate the people who fattened his pockets for years or good luck to him!

Again, if I understand that man correctly, 22 out of 30 commercials were marketed specifically for black women, so clearly ya'll are still the company's primary focus. Ya'll are pissed because one commercial didn't cater to you. I can see it being surprising, and I'd understand the anger if it became a pattern, but one commercial? Really/

And what do you mean there is no reason to market directly to other women. It's a business. Like any other business, they want to expand and grow. It's not your personal property, so why do you expect to have it to yourselves? Black people are lost. Every race can come into our neighborhoods and make money off of us and take it back to their community and build. One of our companies try to do the same thing, and the first thing ya'll do is try to tear it down. That's crazy.

Madame_CJSkywalker;c-9751842 said:
my biggest concern is/was the formula

shea moisture, as a product, has used ingredients specifically formulated for blk womens’ unique hair challenges. so assuming they changed it with the intent of attracting a larger or rather lighter consumer base is disappointing to say the least. especially considering how few hair care companies offer natural products specifically formulated for our hair

as far as the ad goes, it was tone deaf. the company is just not any company. it was created by blk people for natural hair at a time when the natural hair movement was regaining steam with blk ppl but most major hair care brands/lines were not on board. so suddenly having a company that initially championed natural blk hair have advertising that features white women, who are already over represented in the hair care market, is jarring and is going to understandably illicit a strong response

they can and have the right to focus on their bottom line all they want, but it doesn’t mean the reactions to their decision are any less reasonable or valid or dumb

and expound on this notion that blk women seem to have to always be the focus? are you speaking in a general sense? before you answer, consider first that blk women, being double minorities, have historically been ignored and disenfranchised by just about every institution of society

Well, if they are smart, they are going to make different products for different hair types, but I agree, it would be fucked up if they changed the product to accommodate others. You all would have a valid complaint then.

The problem I see is that you guys are personalizing this way too much. You're almost claiming ownership of the company just because you've supported it. That sentiment, although not uncommon, is pretty ridiculous. None of you are supporting that company out of the kindness of your heart. They've spread a message and produced a product that you like. For that, you gave them your money. Quid pro quo. And for at least part of this time, your loyalty came because no one else catered to you like that. When a better or cheaper product comes along, are you saying no black women will jump ship and go to that product? Can you say that hasn't already happened? As customers you have the right to make the right purchasing decisions for yourself. Why is it that this business has to be restricted from making those same decisions for itself without extreme outrage? Before any of you raged of this, did any of you check their books? Do any of you know whether or not this is a move they need to make to stay afloat?
 
Madame_CJSkywalker;c-9751842 said:
and expound on this notion that blk women seem to have to always be the focus? are you speaking in a general sense? before you answer, consider first that blk women, being double minorities, have historically been ignored and disenfranchised by just about every institution of society

I could just point to this incident as reason enough. They release 1 commercial that didn't focus on black women, and some of ya'll are talking about writing them off.

Let me give a more meaningful example though. When BLM was in full swing, a common criticism from a lot of black women was that the movement wasn't focused enough on black women who were being killed too. Now to some extent, that's a valid complaint. The problem is when white people started asking why BLM wasn't concerned with whites being killed, those black women could easily point out that it was a greater problem for blacks than whites, so blacks needed to be the focus of the movement. Fair point. Explain to me why, those black women couldn't understand that same reasoning when it came to why the movement was centralized around incidents involving black males.

556c7fa482883.image.png


That's 2015 data. More whites are actually killed by cops, but there are more of them. When you account for population size blacks are a little over twice as likely to be killed by a cop. So that supports the racial argument. However, look at the breakdown between genders. If you assume for the sake of simplicity that there are roughly as many black men in the country as black women, then black men are 33 times likely to be killed as a black women. Given the arguments I referenced before, it should be a no brainer that the movement was driven by the need to get justice for black men, but that didn't sit well with a lot of black women because they felt black women needed to be the focus ignoring the fact that if rules were passed to protect black men, they'd protect black women too. You can make the same argument for the Civil Rights movement. Til this day there are still black feminists that bash the civil rights movement for being to male oriented. However, when you look at all the rights that were afforded by the Civil Rights movement, black women are benefitting from them now far more than black men. So even when black women come out on top, they still have a problem with not being the focus.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
154
Views
0
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…