Wow, Khaki Pete = total leisure suit Larry rip off?

And why are they maligning the iPhone with this bilge (first photo)?

It reminds me of the chocolate bar 'Yorkie' (I don't know if they're sold in the US) They're marketed with the line "Not for girls". Grrr

Considering that it's insulting the player (Pete is powerless, seeks a return to the extended childhood of college, avoids responsibility, doesn't like his own children or even consider them his, doesn't know how to function in a relationship - in other words, an developmentally retarded adult man) who would want to identify with this character? He's even drawn to look like a 12 year old with a five o' clock shadow. *shudder*

Correct me if I'm wrong, but women outnumber men in the United States, right? Why would advertisers try so hard to market in such a way that offends what might easily be the largest buying pool out there?

Notice that the kids are referred to as only belonging to the wife - They're not "his" kids or "their" kids, but "her" kids - "liberating" Pete from any responsibility in their care.

I see the subtext more positively. The whole game seems to be an escapist fantasy that's appealing because of increasing equality.

In a more sexist context (I'm imagining Mad Men), the game just wouldn't make sense. Pete wouldn't have to care what his wife thought about porn or his going to a stag party. And there'd also be no need to escape from child-care duties.

So, my impression is that this is escapist fantasy, and would be appealing to men who feel some obligation to share household duties, and are daydreaming about being (more?) selfish.

How unfortunate and belittling, to both sexes.

Unilever. Why am I not surprised?

They must have let the marketing division responsible for Axe body spray take over responsibility for Klondike as well.

but does it reflect reality? how many families actually (dis-)function just like this today?

the video portrays a screwed up existence, but it also seems to glorify this existence.

I especially hate the "her kids" bit when it's so easy to just say "the kids", but they just had to do promoting stereotypes and the sort of crap that comes up in arguments.

The bit about "Man Card" also makes me shake my head. It sounds like something from middle school more than anything an adult man should be taking seriously.

It's a little weird that he "loses" and then... basically spends the rest of the night having sex with his wife? (Sure, they could have meant verbally "reassuring" her but I doubt it.) Wouldn't most straight men consider having all-night sex with their wives *better* than watching crappy porn?

As a games designer I don't even want to imagine the design process for this. At the very very very least, there's way too much text. Seems the only reason for having such superfluous chunks of alphabet is to compensate for lack of playable story. I mean, if a good game tells a story through action, not textual exposition.

What is so hard to understand about this.. the guy wants to masturbate in peace.

I'm not married, so I dont have that issue.. but I would imagine that at some point that perhaps a married guy has the impulse to do it.

It seems to me that so many people are overlooking the man's frustration that what should be an easy task to discretely accomplish is instead being foiled by one thing after another.

I find this lack of empathy is all too common in smug sanctimonious environments

I believe there was also a recent TV commercial that depicted a guy who "deserves" a Klondike Bar as a reward for pretending to listen to his wife's endless prattling instead of turning his head to check out the hot college-aged women walking by.

Klondike's marketing used to be gender neutral -- the tagline was "What would you do for a Klondike Bar?" and men and women would do goofy things in order to get one. But sometime in the past few years Klondike decided that they wanted to turn "manly."

Yeah, there was a recent series of Klondike commercials perpetuating the notion that 'men are pigs' and that they deserve Klondikes for not behaving piggishly.

It blows my mind how this stuff gets on the air with just a chuckle and a sigh. One was of a man washing his dirty dishes for a Klondike bar, or something. It was really over-the-top.

Oh come on people. How can you take this seriously? I'm not even sure what level of absurdity this is operating on!
Ridiculous as it is in itself, though, I realise it's offensiveness within the feminist narrative: stunningly, this man exists! Or at least his spirit exists, to a greater or lesser degree, in many men and much advertising. I don't even think I'm immune to it myself.
What this represents is a grown man's inner child run wild. Where feminism in the public sphere has concerned equality in the vote, income and job opportunities, at home (at least in a heterosexual relationship), it seems to often come down to men behaving like children while women accept the burdens of responsibility.
But does this man-child exist? Endlessly, the media tells us "this is what men are; this is what men like; this is what men do; this is what you must be to fit in, to be accepted" (incidentally, has anyone seen the new series of Top Gear ads? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoReRbsHn8&feature=related. They feature much of this 'boys and their toys' guff, along with a smidgen of xenophobia and some height-based humour. Such progressive television). But how many men, in their heart of hearts, want this? Or by analogy, how many white britons want to vote BNP(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party)?
So yes, it is serious, in that it represents a very real problem, in that it perpetrates an identity which a number of people will take on in pursuit of acceptance, and is thus self-realising. But on the other hand, the identity it portrays is ridiculous, and contributes to a reductio ad absurdum argument against that very position. So maybe we should just laugh it off, in a mildly patronising manner (I've just noticed that 'patronising' has 'pat' at the beginning, suggesting sexist connotations. Maybe one to come back to).

He needs to reassure his wife that she's every bit as sexy?? Women are so insecure and simple, am I right? Always needing to be told they're pretty.

If I'm not mistaken, the Pete game is a riff on the Leisure Suit Larry series - I think they're trying to hone in on a demographic of men in the mid-thirties.

I think the understanding of the audience around these parts is a little too simplistic. I don't think the viewer is supposed to say "Me = Khaki Pete". I'm pretty sure the viewer is supposed to realize how pathetic Khaki Pete is. After all, it's supposed to be funny.

These types of ads are different than the "Hey, wanna be glamorous? Use my product!"-type of ads. People are hip to those sorts of ads now, I think. Instead, ad companies are trying to make the customers feel smart and savy by highlighting the fact that the consumer knows the ad is trying to trick them into buying a product using a faulty premise.

I think this ad is of the latter type. They're lampooning masculinity as it's presented in ads/Leisure Suit Larry, not advocating it. The viewer is supposed to know this, and then by extension the product is supposed to look hip and ironic and over it.

These campaigns usually come in pairs. Axe uses the straight-up "Use Axe become sexual dynamo" and then Old Spice lampoons it. I think Klondike is trying to do the same thing Old Spice is doing. They're making fun of people who are like Khaki Pete, not advocating that you become Khaki Pete.

If their plan was to start a viral anti-campaign among women encouraging each other not to buy their product, mission accomplished.

My point is that you're not supposed to identify with Khaki Pete in a good way, you're SUPPOSED to think he's a moron.

My point is that this ad is not like the Brick House Tavern, which shamelessly, unironically trafficks in absolutely idiotic male stereotypes. Rather, this ad campaign is making fun of the absolutely idiotic male stereotypes which other ad campaigns use unironically. Notice all the cliched man-ephemera laying around. It's supposed to look cliched. That's where the humor comes from. Klondike is supposed to look hip and with-it by sort of giving the consumer the old nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

As much as I hate to be the person who says, "there's a study out there but I don't have the time to find it right now because I'm at work" to back up a claim she is about to make, I unfortunately AM at work and really don't have the time to find it, but I wanted to point something out. I remember reading that despite Unilever advertising Klondike so aggressively towards men, women make up somewhere over 50% of the purchasers of Klondike. I guess the new thicker, chocolatey shell is just too delicious to resist.

I really do wish I could find the chart that I saw, as my memory of it isn't perfect, but I really do believe that I read that women buy more Klondike than men do...of course, this can also be attributed to the fact that more women will do the shopping for the family, which skews the numbers.

Hey ladies,
you are just jealous that you can't be with the Pounder!! Yeah, you know you want him to rub your sore, aching, feminist feet.

Ha ha! Men are too stupid to grasp the concept of a secret entrance. Guys, it doesn't work so well if you leave a post-it note reading, "Secret Entrance" on it.

Your horrible wife probably found your "secret porn stash" because it was labeled thusly.

Now go forth, dudes, and consume like the resurrection of your perceived "glory days" depended on it!!!

PS: Aren't women annoying?

UNbelieveable