Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
No intimidation "gyms"
Replies
-
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?
I am far from what anyone would consider a lunk. On a good day, my fitness level can generously be described as average. For my height and weight, I am probably out lifted by 90% of the people at the gym. But when I lift weights, I sometimes make noise, and even *gasp* grunt. This is not done to intimidate others, or make me look tough and cool. In reality it does the opposite, as I look kind of silly struggling through fairly meager weights. But I am still trying to push myself, and will fight hard for that extra rep or two, that I wouldn't have been able to do if I treated the gym as if it was the library.
At some point, if a gym is trying to shame people who are minding their own business for making noise during their workout or doing certain type of lifts, then in reality they do become an intimidation gym. They are just intimidating a different set of people. I can tell you that if I worked out at a gym like that, I would feel intimidated and bullied. And I'm not some super confident muscular guy where I can just easily let that roll off me.
PF is discouraging Tarzan-like alpha-male "look at me!" types of howling when you lift. Incidental grunting is commonplace. Yes, if you actually go there you may learn what actually happens there.
If you feel intimidated and bullied in a PF gym, I seriously wonder how the hell you manage to cope with the real world on a day-to-day basis.
Couldn't you say the same thing about people who join PF because they're worried about someone else wearing something too revealing on the treadmill next to them? Their entire business model is centered on the principle that there are lots of people who are too fragile to handle what is happening in other gyms.
I think some people do go there to escape intimidation -however, others do it because it is cheap, clean, and convenient (my reason) and still others are looking to escape annoyances (that is also fine with me).
I understand people go for a variety of reasons, but their marketing strategy is centered on appealing to people who believe other gyms are full of people who are intimidating, mean, vain, and annoying.
So if I'm wondering if someone can make it in the real world, I think the type of person PF is targeting with their ads is a lot less resilient and adaptable than someone who is turned off by the stereotyping inherent in the ad campaigns.
The PF I workout at was once a traditional gym where I had been a member for years. One day we received an email that PF had acquired it and that it was closing down for a month to bring in the purple equipment. A lot of us were very disappointed because it was a great gym. When they reopened it, about half of the people I knew there just remained because it was convenient and cheap, none of us were seeking shelter from intimidation.
In reality, almost the entirety of the advertising concerns pricing and hours - if they double their price or reduce their hours, they will lose a lot of members to other gyms and rec centers, the intimidation-free thing will not sustain their business model.
So what it comes down to is that you're a PF member and are offended by the objections to them? That puts your position into perspective.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?
I am far from what anyone would consider a lunk. On a good day, my fitness level can generously be described as average. For my height and weight, I am probably out lifted by 90% of the people at the gym. But when I lift weights, I sometimes make noise, and even *gasp* grunt. This is not done to intimidate others, or make me look tough and cool. In reality it does the opposite, as I look kind of silly struggling through fairly meager weights. But I am still trying to push myself, and will fight hard for that extra rep or two, that I wouldn't have been able to do if I treated the gym as if it was the library.
At some point, if a gym is trying to shame people who are minding their own business for making noise during their workout or doing certain type of lifts, then in reality they do become an intimidation gym. They are just intimidating a different set of people. I can tell you that if I worked out at a gym like that, I would feel intimidated and bullied. And I'm not some super confident muscular guy where I can just easily let that roll off me.
PF is discouraging Tarzan-like alpha-male "look at me!" types of howling when you lift. Incidental grunting is commonplace. Yes, if you actually go there you may learn what actually happens there.
If you feel intimidated and bullied in a PF gym, I seriously wonder how the hell you manage to cope with the real world on a day-to-day basis.
Couldn't you say the same thing about people who join PF because they're worried about someone else wearing something too revealing on the treadmill next to them? Their entire business model is centered on the principle that there are lots of people who are too fragile to handle what is happening in other gyms.
I think some people do go there to escape intimidation -however, others do it because it is cheap, clean, and convenient (my reason) and still others are looking to escape annoyances (that is also fine with me).
I understand people go for a variety of reasons, but their marketing strategy is centered on appealing to people who believe other gyms are full of people who are intimidating, mean, vain, and annoying.
So if I'm wondering if someone can make it in the real world, I think the type of person PF is targeting with their ads is a lot less resilient and adaptable than someone who is turned off by the stereotyping inherent in the ad campaigns.
The PF I workout at was once a traditional gym where I had been a member for years. One day we received an email that PF had acquired it and that it was closing down for a month to bring in the purple equipment. A lot of us were very disappointed because it was a great gym. When they reopened it, about half of the people I knew there just remained because it was convenient and cheap, none of us were seeking shelter from intimidation.
In reality, almost the entirety of the advertising concerns pricing and hours - if they double their price or reduce their hours, they will lose a lot of members to other gyms and rec centers, the intimidation-free thing will not sustain their business model.
That may be true, the point is that PF thinks the way they brand themselves is good for their business. Despite you thinking it's irrelevant to customers, the PF promotional team clearly disagrees. It's possible they're completely wrong and you're right. I'm going to assume that they have at least some reason for choosing this strategy.
Nobody is arguing that PF customers are bad people or that they're all choosing PF to escape "intimidation" or avoid seeing someone workout in a tiny top. What people are objecting to is the messages in their promotional campaign, messages that were freely chosen by PF itself. Even if members are making their decision based on things like pricing, the PF webpage is centering the "judgement free experience" (they've even trademarked a slogan based on it).
When people criticize this campaign, they aren't criticizing you or the other members of your gym. Whether or not you find the ad campaign relevant to your interests, it's a real thing that exists.
I just Googled PF and here is the top result (which is sponsored, so it is the one that PF wants you to find):
"Judgement free" is referenced, but there is no lunk-shaming anywhere to be found. When I click on the PF link, it takes me to a page that shows me the gym it thinks is closest to me and the pricing options. The anti-lunk thing is an attention-getter but it isn't important enough to their business model to even reference it in their corporate advertising. I honestly think they just stay with it to troll people at this point.
How do you not consider their most memorable TV commercials part of their "corporate advertising"?
I don't think they are using the lunk-shaming in their current round of promotions, as most large corporate entities do cycle through their primary messaging from time to time. Now they have toned it down to just the "judgement free" (which does still suggest that you will risk being judged if you go elsewhere). But they ran those lunk commercials for years, they would be something most people think of when they think of PF.
I have no skin in this game, I have actually never gone to a public gym. I don't think people should be put down for going to PF or are less serious about getting fit, but I don't think it's out of line to find their advertising insulting and demeaning, and ironically quite judgmental.
I have never actually seen any of PF commercials on TV, they have only come to my attention, ironically enough, as reposts by people who are offended by them
. Their corporate advertising strategy is primarily advertising on the internet by buying priority placement in search engines, because that is where people will actually go to get more information about local gyms and sign up for memberships.
Just because you haven't seen the commercials, it doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't a major part of their advertising strategy. It seems like you are trying to argue that PF doesn't really mean what they are saying in these commercials because you haven't been exposed to them. That seems to be a pretty ignorant stance in my opinion. They do have good prices, and are very convenient for a lot of people, so I understand the appeal, but their advertising is trash. Its extremely hypocritical of them to call themselves judgement free when they are using extreme stereotypes to define all other gyms.
You clearly misunderstood what I said - it is always a good policy to ensure you are comprehending someone's message before descending into calling others ignorant, it isn't a good look.
I asserted that PF's advertising was mostly internet-centric. That has nothing to do with PF believing their own commercials - if you saw the Google search result I posted above or visited their web landing page you don't find anything resembling the commercials "anti-lunk" content, it is all pricing, convenience, and judgment-free messaging. PF conquered the gym industry and has 10 million members because they charge $10 per month, the rest is far behind that in customer motivation.
You're divorcing the "anti-lunk" content from the "judgement free" stuff, but they're really the same core message. It's a negative message about other gyms and the people who go to them.
Are you privy to how much they spend on advertising? I don't understand the basis for the claim that their advertising is mostly on the internet. I see their commercials on TV, I've heard them on the radio, I've also seen them online. I have no idea what they do most of. I only know what I see most of and that is heavily influenced by my internet habits, media consumption choices, what ads are being targeted to me, and my geographic location.
Apparently about $100 Million in 2018.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/news/companies/planet-fitness/index.html
"Backed by a massive $100 million ad campaign to attract new recruits and an untapped gym market -- only 20% of Americans belong to a gym -- Planet Fitness has a wide lane to run, Cowen analyst Oliver Chen predicted."
4 -
To anyone who may have been living in an advertising wasteland and has missed the fact that PF's marketing campaign negatively targets what they call "lunks" - this one's for you:
https://youtu.be/yhDcjlYrwmQ
PS: No dog in this fight, either. I workout at home. Methinks their "Judgement Free Zone" campaign is merely a watered-down version of the same premise, though.2 -
jseams1234 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?
I am far from what anyone would consider a lunk. On a good day, my fitness level can generously be described as average. For my height and weight, I am probably out lifted by 90% of the people at the gym. But when I lift weights, I sometimes make noise, and even *gasp* grunt. This is not done to intimidate others, or make me look tough and cool. In reality it does the opposite, as I look kind of silly struggling through fairly meager weights. But I am still trying to push myself, and will fight hard for that extra rep or two, that I wouldn't have been able to do if I treated the gym as if it was the library.
At some point, if a gym is trying to shame people who are minding their own business for making noise during their workout or doing certain type of lifts, then in reality they do become an intimidation gym. They are just intimidating a different set of people. I can tell you that if I worked out at a gym like that, I would feel intimidated and bullied. And I'm not some super confident muscular guy where I can just easily let that roll off me.
PF is discouraging Tarzan-like alpha-male "look at me!" types of howling when you lift. Incidental grunting is commonplace. Yes, if you actually go there you may learn what actually happens there.
If you feel intimidated and bullied in a PF gym, I seriously wonder how the hell you manage to cope with the real world on a day-to-day basis.
Couldn't you say the same thing about people who join PF because they're worried about someone else wearing something too revealing on the treadmill next to them? Their entire business model is centered on the principle that there are lots of people who are too fragile to handle what is happening in other gyms.
I think some people do go there to escape intimidation -however, others do it because it is cheap, clean, and convenient (my reason) and still others are looking to escape annoyances (that is also fine with me).
I understand people go for a variety of reasons, but their marketing strategy is centered on appealing to people who believe other gyms are full of people who are intimidating, mean, vain, and annoying.
So if I'm wondering if someone can make it in the real world, I think the type of person PF is targeting with their ads is a lot less resilient and adaptable than someone who is turned off by the stereotyping inherent in the ad campaigns.
The PF I workout at was once a traditional gym where I had been a member for years. One day we received an email that PF had acquired it and that it was closing down for a month to bring in the purple equipment. A lot of us were very disappointed because it was a great gym. When they reopened it, about half of the people I knew there just remained because it was convenient and cheap, none of us were seeking shelter from intimidation.
In reality, almost the entirety of the advertising concerns pricing and hours - if they double their price or reduce their hours, they will lose a lot of members to other gyms and rec centers, the intimidation-free thing will not sustain their business model.
That may be true, the point is that PF thinks the way they brand themselves is good for their business. Despite you thinking it's irrelevant to customers, the PF promotional team clearly disagrees. It's possible they're completely wrong and you're right. I'm going to assume that they have at least some reason for choosing this strategy.
Nobody is arguing that PF customers are bad people or that they're all choosing PF to escape "intimidation" or avoid seeing someone workout in a tiny top. What people are objecting to is the messages in their promotional campaign, messages that were freely chosen by PF itself. Even if members are making their decision based on things like pricing, the PF webpage is centering the "judgement free experience" (they've even trademarked a slogan based on it).
When people criticize this campaign, they aren't criticizing you or the other members of your gym. Whether or not you find the ad campaign relevant to your interests, it's a real thing that exists.
I just Googled PF and here is the top result (which is sponsored, so it is the one that PF wants you to find):
"Judgement free" is referenced, but there is no lunk-shaming anywhere to be found. When I click on the PF link, it takes me to a page that shows me the gym it thinks is closest to me and the pricing options. The anti-lunk thing is an attention-getter but it isn't important enough to their business model to even reference it in their corporate advertising. I honestly think they just stay with it to troll people at this point.
How do you not consider their most memorable TV commercials part of their "corporate advertising"?
I don't think they are using the lunk-shaming in their current round of promotions, as most large corporate entities do cycle through their primary messaging from time to time. Now they have toned it down to just the "judgement free" (which does still suggest that you will risk being judged if you go elsewhere). But they ran those lunk commercials for years, they would be something most people think of when they think of PF.
I have no skin in this game, I have actually never gone to a public gym. I don't think people should be put down for going to PF or are less serious about getting fit, but I don't think it's out of line to find their advertising insulting and demeaning, and ironically quite judgmental.
I have never actually seen any of PF commercials on TV, they have only come to my attention, ironically enough, as reposts by people who are offended by them . Their corporate advertising strategy is primarily advertising on the internet by buying priority placement in search engines, because that is where people will actually go to get more information about local gyms and sign up for memberships.
Just because you haven't seen the commercials, it doesn't mean that they don't exist and aren't a major part of their advertising strategy. It seems like you are trying to argue that PF doesn't really mean what they are saying in these commercials because you haven't been exposed to them. That seems to be a pretty ignorant stance in my opinion. They do have good prices, and are very convenient for a lot of people, so I understand the appeal, but their advertising is trash. Its extremely hypocritical of them to call themselves judgement free when they are using extreme stereotypes to define all other gyms.
You clearly misunderstood what I said - it is always a good policy to ensure you are comprehending someone's message before descending into calling others ignorant, it isn't a good look.
I asserted that PF's advertising was mostly internet-centric. That has nothing to do with PF believing their own commercials - if you saw the Google search result I posted above or visited their web landing page you don't find anything resembling the commercials "anti-lunk" content, it is all pricing, convenience, and judgment-free messaging. PF conquered the gym industry and has 10 million members because they charge $10 per month, the rest is far behind that in customer motivation.
You're divorcing the "anti-lunk" content from the "judgement free" stuff, but they're really the same core message. It's a negative message about other gyms and the people who go to them.
Are you privy to how much they spend on advertising? I don't understand the basis for the claim that their advertising is mostly on the internet. I see their commercials on TV, I've heard them on the radio, I've also seen them online. I have no idea what they do most of. I only know what I see most of and that is heavily influenced by my internet habits, media consumption choices, what ads are being targeted to me, and my geographic location.
Apparently about $100 Million in 2018.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/news/companies/planet-fitness/index.html
"Backed by a massive $100 million ad campaign to attract new recruits and an untapped gym market -- only 20% of Americans belong to a gym -- Planet Fitness has a wide lane to run, Cowen analyst Oliver Chen predicted."
Unfortunately, that doesn't let us know if most of that is spent on internet advertising. It's a lot more than I thought they spent though (I'm not in advertising, so my assumptions aren't particularly well informed).0 -
The actress who plays Tahani on The Good Place just released a FB video on how some rando at the gym went up to her and said if she worked on herself she could look really good. First off, dude must be BLIND cause she's smoking! Secondly, that's why no-intimidation gyms appeal to some people.4
-
RachelElser wrote: »The actress who plays Tahani on The Good Place just released a FB video on how some rando at the gym went up to her and said if she worked on herself she could look really good. First off, dude must be BLIND cause she's smoking! Secondly, that's why no-intimidation gyms appeal to some people.
She was approached outside the gym, not inside it. I'm pretty sure that PF's "no judgment zones" don't extend beyond their doors.4 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?
I am far from what anyone would consider a lunk. On a good day, my fitness level can generously be described as average. For my height and weight, I am probably out lifted by 90% of the people at the gym. But when I lift weights, I sometimes make noise, and even *gasp* grunt. This is not done to intimidate others, or make me look tough and cool. In reality it does the opposite, as I look kind of silly struggling through fairly meager weights. But I am still trying to push myself, and will fight hard for that extra rep or two, that I wouldn't have been able to do if I treated the gym as if it was the library.
At some point, if a gym is trying to shame people who are minding their own business for making noise during their workout or doing certain type of lifts, then in reality they do become an intimidation gym. They are just intimidating a different set of people. I can tell you that if I worked out at a gym like that, I would feel intimidated and bullied. And I'm not some super confident muscular guy where I can just easily let that roll off me.
PF is discouraging Tarzan-like alpha-male "look at me!" types of howling when you lift. Incidental grunting is commonplace. Yes, if you actually go there you may learn what actually happens there.
If you feel intimidated and bullied in a PF gym, I seriously wonder how the hell you manage to cope with the real world on a day-to-day basis.
Couldn't you say the same thing about people who join PF because they're worried about someone else wearing something too revealing on the treadmill next to them? Their entire business model is centered on the principle that there are lots of people who are too fragile to handle what is happening in other gyms.
I think some people do go there to escape intimidation -however, others do it because it is cheap, clean, and convenient (my reason) and still others are looking to escape annoyances (that is also fine with me).
I understand people go for a variety of reasons, but their marketing strategy is centered on appealing to people who believe other gyms are full of people who are intimidating, mean, vain, and annoying.
So if I'm wondering if someone can make it in the real world, I think the type of person PF is targeting with their ads is a lot less resilient and adaptable than someone who is turned off by the stereotyping inherent in the ad campaigns.
The PF I workout at was once a traditional gym where I had been a member for years. One day we received an email that PF had acquired it and that it was closing down for a month to bring in the purple equipment. A lot of us were very disappointed because it was a great gym. When they reopened it, about half of the people I knew there just remained because it was convenient and cheap, none of us were seeking shelter from intimidation.
In reality, almost the entirety of the advertising concerns pricing and hours - if they double their price or reduce their hours, they will lose a lot of members to other gyms and rec centers, the intimidation-free thing will not sustain their business model.
So what it comes down to is that you're a PF member and are offended by the objections to them? That puts your position into perspective.
I belong to PF, a community rec center, and a workplace gym - I’ve been a gym rat my entire adult life so I’ve seen it all when it comes to gym cultures.
I’m offended by very little, including PF animosity. I’m more amused than anything with this, the faux outrage / faux victim-hood associated with poking fun at “lunks”, as if they are some downtrodden race of people who are getting discriminated against. Can we redraft the 14th Amendment to include lunks? Check with your local Congressman, anything is possible.
The TV advertising targets a set of behaviors which are greatly exaggerated for amusement and easy to refrain from engaging in - the best response is to not give PF your ten bucks and invest your time in causes with actual victims who need your help, the bros at the gym are going to be just fine.10 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?
So let me understand, if the "lunk alarm" goes off at a planet fitness when I am deadlifting there (assuming I could find an Olympic bar and plates) because I grunted or clanked weights that are heavy FOR ME (but wouldn't be for an actually strong person), am I being shamed for being a lunk? Or am I being shamed for "acting in a way that people find offensive"? Also, given that pretty much 100% of people will clank the weights a bit when doing heavy deadlifts, is there just something inherently "lunky" about doing deadlifts that deserves shaming, despite the fact that most experts think that deadlifts are the most effective single exercise for developing whole body strength? TIA
I have been going to PF for years, spending hundreds of hours in the gym, and not once has the lunk alarm been activated. I don't even know if it is hooked up.
I have seen numerous "violations", where if someone was militantly enforcing the rules they could have sounded the alarm (grunting, dropping weights, bro-attire)- but no one actually really cares, the anti-lunk thing it is just a marketing image meant to discourage the presence of certain people in advance - you would have to almost intentionally make a big spectacle of yourself to cause a response, and the attendant would likely just walk over and chat with you rather than sounding some alarm.
The presence of the lunk alarm is just a trigger for people who have never actually set foot in a PF but are nonetheless strongly opposed to the PF franchise to bash PF, it isn't relevant to anything actually happening there.
Even though I workout at home, I have a PF membership because it suits me fine and it's close and cheap. I used it more before I got my home treadmill and might use it again when my son outgrows our home set-up.
The last time I was there (which was a while ago), the lunk alarm went off.
It's not just a marketing ploy.
I have to say it was a real turn off. I hate the advertising they do.
It's okay to say that the facility gives you what you need and still be of the belief that they launched a terrible advertising campaign. A lot of us make compromises in our lives due to convenience. This PF is so close I can walk there.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?
I am far from what anyone would consider a lunk. On a good day, my fitness level can generously be described as average. For my height and weight, I am probably out lifted by 90% of the people at the gym. But when I lift weights, I sometimes make noise, and even *gasp* grunt. This is not done to intimidate others, or make me look tough and cool. In reality it does the opposite, as I look kind of silly struggling through fairly meager weights. But I am still trying to push myself, and will fight hard for that extra rep or two, that I wouldn't have been able to do if I treated the gym as if it was the library.
At some point, if a gym is trying to shame people who are minding their own business for making noise during their workout or doing certain type of lifts, then in reality they do become an intimidation gym. They are just intimidating a different set of people. I can tell you that if I worked out at a gym like that, I would feel intimidated and bullied. And I'm not some super confident muscular guy where I can just easily let that roll off me.
PF is discouraging Tarzan-like alpha-male "look at me!" types of howling when you lift. Incidental grunting is commonplace. Yes, if you actually go there you may learn what actually happens there.
If you feel intimidated and bullied in a PF gym, I seriously wonder how the hell you manage to cope with the real world on a day-to-day basis.
Couldn't you say the same thing about people who join PF because they're worried about someone else wearing something too revealing on the treadmill next to them? Their entire business model is centered on the principle that there are lots of people who are too fragile to handle what is happening in other gyms.
Side note: In addition to being the only gym in which I was ever hit on, PF was also the gym in which I saw the most scantily clad woman. She had the shortest running shorts(exposed booty) ever and the tiniest crop top. I never saw anyone in another gym dressed in as revealing a way as her.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Yes, the marketing scheme is a marketing scheme, but obviously people pay for it, so I fail to see the issue. People who are serious about their health and fitness will likely out grow those gyms and move on to others.
It's insulting to anyone who doesn't fit their target. They can market to whoever they like without being insulting.
I would not be happy if Anytime Fitness (where I'm going) said "no fatties".
Other than that, more power to them.
For a non targeted person to feel insulted by a marketing campaign, in th context of a facility they will never enter, is about the oddest emotional reaction i can think of.
11 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Yes, the marketing scheme is a marketing scheme, but obviously people pay for it, so I fail to see the issue. People who are serious about their health and fitness will likely out grow those gyms and move on to others.
It's insulting to anyone who doesn't fit their target. They can market to whoever they like without being insulting.
I would not be happy if Anytime Fitness (where I'm going) said "no fatties".
Other than that, more power to them.
For a non targeted person to feel insulted by a marketing campaign, in th context of a facility they will never enter, is about the oddest emotional reaction i can think of.
I don't know why one would have to be targeted by a message in order for it to be offensive. If someone wrote a book about how janejellyroll smelled and was a big dummy, it's completely possible that I might be offended even if they never counted on selling a copy of it to me.
How many people who hate a group are targeting that specific group? The general point of demeaning talk is that you're attempting to persuade *others* to also dislike a group that you dislike and it's certainly possible for such talk to be legitimately viewed as offensive.
That it is a marketing campaign is irrelevant for determining whether or not it is offensive. There's nothing inherent to a marketing campaign that would make a otherwise offensive statement less offensive.9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Yes, the marketing scheme is a marketing scheme, but obviously people pay for it, so I fail to see the issue. People who are serious about their health and fitness will likely out grow those gyms and move on to others.
It's insulting to anyone who doesn't fit their target. They can market to whoever they like without being insulting.
I would not be happy if Anytime Fitness (where I'm going) said "no fatties".
Other than that, more power to them.
For a non targeted person to feel insulted by a marketing campaign, in th context of a facility they will never enter, is about the oddest emotional reaction i can think of.
Finding something objectively offensive seems odd to you?9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Yes, the marketing scheme is a marketing scheme, but obviously people pay for it, so I fail to see the issue. People who are serious about their health and fitness will likely out grow those gyms and move on to others.
It's insulting to anyone who doesn't fit their target. They can market to whoever they like without being insulting.
I would not be happy if Anytime Fitness (where I'm going) said "no fatties".
Other than that, more power to them.
For a non targeted person to feel insulted by a marketing campaign, in th context of a facility they will never enter, is about the oddest emotional reaction i can think of.
Finding something objectively offensive seems odd to you?
^^This.
For example, I don't have to be fat in order to find 'fat jokes' offensive.
8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
The last time I was there (which was a while ago), the lunk alarm went off.
It's not just a marketing ploy.
I have to say it was a real turn off. I hate the advertising they do.
I am being 100% serious when I say a former co-worker of mine had the POLICE CALLED ON HIM at a Planet Fitness (Hickory, NC in case you're curious) when he dropped a couple dumbbells after doing a heavy set of shoulder presses. CALLED LAW ENFORCEMENT. FOR DROPPING WEIGHTS. Dropping, not slamming. I am sure SOME of the individual PF's are tolerant and don't use the Lunk Alarm and all chuckle at the ridiculousness of their advertising. But some obviously take it very seriously and have a hard-on for being ***holes to people who actually lift hard.
FWIW, this former co-worker of mine was also the VP of the company and currently owns a yoga studio. He isn't some jackleg who goes around looking to start ****.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?
I am far from what anyone would consider a lunk. On a good day, my fitness level can generously be described as average. For my height and weight, I am probably out lifted by 90% of the people at the gym. But when I lift weights, I sometimes make noise, and even *gasp* grunt. This is not done to intimidate others, or make me look tough and cool. In reality it does the opposite, as I look kind of silly struggling through fairly meager weights. But I am still trying to push myself, and will fight hard for that extra rep or two, that I wouldn't have been able to do if I treated the gym as if it was the library.
At some point, if a gym is trying to shame people who are minding their own business for making noise during their workout or doing certain type of lifts, then in reality they do become an intimidation gym. They are just intimidating a different set of people. I can tell you that if I worked out at a gym like that, I would feel intimidated and bullied. And I'm not some super confident muscular guy where I can just easily let that roll off me.
PF is discouraging Tarzan-like alpha-male "look at me!" types of howling when you lift. Incidental grunting is commonplace. Yes, if you actually go there you may learn what actually happens there.
If you feel intimidated and bullied in a PF gym, I seriously wonder how the hell you manage to cope with the real world on a day-to-day basis.
Couldn't you say the same thing about people who join PF because they're worried about someone else wearing something too revealing on the treadmill next to them? Their entire business model is centered on the principle that there are lots of people who are too fragile to handle what is happening in other gyms.
Side note: In addition to being the only gym in which I was ever hit on, PF was also the gym in which I saw the most scantily clad woman. She had the shortest running shorts(exposed booty) ever and the tiniest crop top. I never saw anyone in another gym dressed in as revealing a way as her.
I'm now reconsidering my boycott of PF. 7 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
I belong to PF, a community rec center, and a workplace gym - I’ve been a gym rat my entire adult life so I’ve seen it all when it comes to gym cultures.
I’m offended by very little, including PF animosity. I’m more amused than anything with this, the faux outrage / faux victim-hood associated with poking fun at “lunks”, as if they are some downtrodden race of people who are getting discriminated against. Can we redraft the 14th Amendment to include lunks? Check with your local Congressman, anything is possible.
The TV advertising targets a set of behaviors which are greatly exaggerated for amusement and easy to refrain from engaging in - the best response is to not give PF your ten bucks and invest your time in causes with actual victims who need your help, the bros at the gym are going to be just fine.
On the scale of problems in the world, this one is pretty minor. But... your post seems really entitled and dismissive to me. You get that there are PFs where real people in the actual world who innocently paid their 10 bucks and went to work out have had a loud noise and a flashing light single them out for ridicule, right? But.. they'll be just fine? This experience was only "poking fun at them"? And you know that's how they feel about it how exactly? Because you say so? And while you're at it, you'll also give them a dismissive nickname and mock the idea that maybe this is a bad idea?
Here's an idea --- re-read what you wrote, substituting an offensive term for some other group for "lunks" and "bros" and see how it sounds to you. It's not a good look.11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »It takes a tremendous amount of contorting to equivocate shaming fat people with shaming lunks. A lunk behaves in a way that many find offensive, it isn't just the state of being heavily muscled. If you are a big monster of a guy (like the guys in that PF commercial) but quietly going about your workout, then none of these PF commercials are targeted at you. And yet people are actually stretching a long way to find elements of the "lunk" stereotype within themselves in order to feign offense. "Poor me, I am a guy with big muscles and my feelings are being hurt" lol, really?
I am far from what anyone would consider a lunk. On a good day, my fitness level can generously be described as average. For my height and weight, I am probably out lifted by 90% of the people at the gym. But when I lift weights, I sometimes make noise, and even *gasp* grunt. This is not done to intimidate others, or make me look tough and cool. In reality it does the opposite, as I look kind of silly struggling through fairly meager weights. But I am still trying to push myself, and will fight hard for that extra rep or two, that I wouldn't have been able to do if I treated the gym as if it was the library.
At some point, if a gym is trying to shame people who are minding their own business for making noise during their workout or doing certain type of lifts, then in reality they do become an intimidation gym. They are just intimidating a different set of people. I can tell you that if I worked out at a gym like that, I would feel intimidated and bullied. And I'm not some super confident muscular guy where I can just easily let that roll off me.
PF is discouraging Tarzan-like alpha-male "look at me!" types of howling when you lift. Incidental grunting is commonplace. Yes, if you actually go there you may learn what actually happens there.
If you feel intimidated and bullied in a PF gym, I seriously wonder how the hell you manage to cope with the real world on a day-to-day basis.
Couldn't you say the same thing about people who join PF because they're worried about someone else wearing something too revealing on the treadmill next to them? Their entire business model is centered on the principle that there are lots of people who are too fragile to handle what is happening in other gyms.
Side note: In addition to being the only gym in which I was ever hit on, PF was also the gym in which I saw the most scantily clad woman. She had the shortest running shorts(exposed booty) ever and the tiniest crop top. I never saw anyone in another gym dressed in as revealing a way as her.
I'm now reconsidering my boycott of PF.
Well. There is this one lady at my Anytime who kinds spills out of her sports bra....1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Yes, the marketing scheme is a marketing scheme, but obviously people pay for it, so I fail to see the issue. People who are serious about their health and fitness will likely out grow those gyms and move on to others.
It's insulting to anyone who doesn't fit their target. They can market to whoever they like without being insulting.
I would not be happy if Anytime Fitness (where I'm going) said "no fatties".
Other than that, more power to them.
For a non targeted person to feel insulted by a marketing campaign, in th context of a facility they will never enter, is about the oddest emotional reaction i can think of.
Finding something objectively offensive seems odd to you?
^^This.
For example, I don't have to be fat in order to find 'fat jokes' offensive.
Exactly! And to take it further:
I don't have to be a racial minority to find racial stereotypes offensive.
I don't have to be gay to find homophobia offensive.
I don't have to be a woman to find sexual discrimination offensive.
The whole idea of stereotyping is dehumanizing. It is in and of itself offensive whether it is directed at you personally or not. That is the objection of many to Planet Fitness's approach.
This has absolutely nothing to do with faux outrage, victimization (I don't fit any of their stereotype that they characterize) or or whether I am targeted and insulted by them. I am neither. I still can find them offensive without being personally insulted, feeling like a victim or feeling outrage, faux or not.
12 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »To anyone who may have been living in an advertising wasteland and has missed the fact that PF's marketing campaign negatively targets what they call "lunks" - this one's for you:https://youtu.be/yhDcjlYrwmQ
PS: No dog in this fight, either. I workout at home. Methinks their "Judgement Free Zone" campaign is merely a watered-down version of the same premise, though.
The narrative of all the PF ads I've seen posted on this thread (versus the ones I see on TV, which focus on low price and 24/7 hours) is
Prospective Customer: My experience or belief about gyms is horrible and absurd thing X. [Lunk alarm is part of anecdote/reminiscene of prospective customer]
PF employee trying to make a sale: That won't happen to you here. We're not a gym.
Apparently PF has learned better than OP that if you're trying to persuade somebody to do something, you don't call them fat and lazy or to argue with their emotionally charged beliefs. Tell them that you understand them and empathize with them. Don't tell them their concerns aren't real. Tell them you have a solution for their concerns.
I have never had someone trying to sell me something argue with me about the reality of a concern I've expressed about other providers of their products or services.
If anything, my "dog in the fight" should be on the anti PF side. I work out at a "regular" gym. I have never been to a PF and have no interest in going to one, as I want free weights and a squat cage, etc., and am fortunate enough to be able to afford a membership at a gym that has those things. And if people who have a preconception that everyone in my gym is mean and rude don't come to my gym, I'm OK with that. Because most people who are convinced that you are mean and rude before they meet you tend to be looking for things to take offense to, and will treat you the way they believe you are going to treat them. And I don't need that while I'm just trying to do my thing at the gym.2 -
Here's an idea --- re-read what you wrote, substituting an offensive term for some other group for "lunks" and "bros" and see how it sounds to you. It's not a good look.Exactly! And to take it further:
I don't have to be a racial minority to find racial stereotypes offensive.
I don't have to be gay to find homophobia offensive.
I don't have to be a woman to find sexual discrimination offensive.
I'm glad somebody else went there. I was trying hard to find a way to address it and stay within the lines. There's so much wrong there that it makes normal wrong look right.7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »To anyone who may have been living in an advertising wasteland and has missed the fact that PF's marketing campaign negatively targets what they call "lunks" - this one's for you:https://youtu.be/yhDcjlYrwmQ
PS: No dog in this fight, either. I workout at home. Methinks their "Judgement Free Zone" campaign is merely a watered-down version of the same premise, though.
The narrative of all the PF ads I've seen posted on this thread (versus the ones I see on TV, which focus on low price and 24/7 hours) is
<snippage since I only want to address one point>
The ads in my area shifted over time. I remember when PF first started in the area. They went with the no-intimidation angle. BTW, I'm in the Philadelphia television market, so this isn't some small area of the country. I remember the ads like the ones posted in this thread.
Lately, the ads do stress the 24 hour availability and that it's clean like the ones you say you see.
0 -
Here's an idea --- re-read what you wrote, substituting an offensive term for some other group for "lunks" and "bros" and see how it sounds to you. It's not a good look.Exactly! And to take it further:
I don't have to be a racial minority to find racial stereotypes offensive.
I don't have to be gay to find homophobia offensive.
I don't have to be a woman to find sexual discrimination offensive.
I'm glad somebody else went there. I was trying hard to find a way to address it and stay within the lines. There's so much wrong there that it makes normal wrong look right.
That's pretty much what I was thinking when I posted my post but I was too busy sputtering with incredulity to think of an appropriate way to post it.2 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
I belong to PF, a community rec center, and a workplace gym - I’ve been a gym rat my entire adult life so I’ve seen it all when it comes to gym cultures.
I’m offended by very little, including PF animosity. I’m more amused than anything with this, the faux outrage / faux victim-hood associated with poking fun at “lunks”, as if they are some downtrodden race of people who are getting discriminated against. Can we redraft the 14th Amendment to include lunks? Check with your local Congressman, anything is possible.
The TV advertising targets a set of behaviors which are greatly exaggerated for amusement and easy to refrain from engaging in - the best response is to not give PF your ten bucks and invest your time in causes with actual victims who need your help, the bros at the gym are going to be just fine.
On the scale of problems in the world, this one is pretty minor. But... your post seems really entitled and dismissive to me. You get that there are PFs where real people in the actual world who innocently paid their 10 bucks and went to work out have had a loud noise and a flashing light single them out for ridicule, right? But.. they'll be just fine? This experience was only "poking fun at them"? And you know that's how they feel about it how exactly? Because you say so? And while you're at it, you'll also give them a dismissive nickname and mock the idea that maybe this is a bad idea?
Here's an idea --- re-read what you wrote, substituting an offensive term for some other group for "lunks" and "bros" and see how it sounds to you. It's not a good look.
So being a lunk or a bro, which is entirely a choice based upon one’s behavior, is the same as being a racial or ethnic minority, handicapped, homosexual, etc? No, just stop with this, seriously, you are marginalizing real discrimination and offensiveness.14 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »To anyone who may have been living in an advertising wasteland and has missed the fact that PF's marketing campaign negatively targets what they call "lunks" - this one's for you:https://youtu.be/yhDcjlYrwmQ
PS: No dog in this fight, either. I workout at home. Methinks their "Judgement Free Zone" campaign is merely a watered-down version of the same premise, though.
The narrative of all the PF ads I've seen posted on this thread (versus the ones I see on TV, which focus on low price and 24/7 hours) is
Prospective Customer: My experience or belief about gyms is horrible and absurd thing X. [Lunk alarm is part of anecdote/reminiscene of prospective customer]
PF employee trying to make a sale: That won't happen to you here. We're not a gym.
Not sure what TV you're seeing but all the national ads I've seen are the videos posted here which don't mention cost or hours. There may be some local ads that just focus on price and 24 hours (probably the case as not all PFs are 24/7). The national ads I've seen all start with examples of what PF considers examples stereotyped "lunk" behavior. Next, they show the perspective PF member in an almost confessional tone talking to the PF employee who looks at and talks to them like the employee is a grief counselor.3 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
I belong to PF, a community rec center, and a workplace gym - I’ve been a gym rat my entire adult life so I’ve seen it all when it comes to gym cultures.
I’m offended by very little, including PF animosity. I’m more amused than anything with this, the faux outrage / faux victim-hood associated with poking fun at “lunks”, as if they are some downtrodden race of people who are getting discriminated against. Can we redraft the 14th Amendment to include lunks? Check with your local Congressman, anything is possible.
The TV advertising targets a set of behaviors which are greatly exaggerated for amusement and easy to refrain from engaging in - the best response is to not give PF your ten bucks and invest your time in causes with actual victims who need your help, the bros at the gym are going to be just fine.
On the scale of problems in the world, this one is pretty minor. But... your post seems really entitled and dismissive to me. You get that there are PFs where real people in the actual world who innocently paid their 10 bucks and went to work out have had a loud noise and a flashing light single them out for ridicule, right? But.. they'll be just fine? This experience was only "poking fun at them"? And you know that's how they feel about it how exactly? Because you say so? And while you're at it, you'll also give them a dismissive nickname and mock the idea that maybe this is a bad idea?
Here's an idea --- re-read what you wrote, substituting an offensive term for some other group for "lunks" and "bros" and see how it sounds to you. It's not a good look.
So being a lunk or a bro, which is entirely a choice based upon one’s behavior, is the same as being a racial or ethnic minority, handicapped, homosexual, etc? No, just stop with this, seriously, you are marginalizing real discrimination and offensiveness.
I find that the ability to step back and actually listen to others is really helpful in discussions like this. I hear your concern about trivializing “real discrimination.” I’m technically a member of a group that has suffered a lot of discrimination, and while that’s not a big part of my identity I somewhat get the concern, although my personal experience of ethnic hate has been limited to hearing some random comments and jokes.
As a parent in a diverse, urban public school that’s also a leader in accommodating/accepting trans students (the school, not me - I’m just a dad), I’ve heard this kind of concern before from members of minority communities who are concerned that efforts to accommodate trans students will distract from their issues. The school’s approach - and it makes sense to me generally - is that the key to reaching common ground is to embrace a fundamental principle that discrimination and shaming are wrong, no matter who the targets are.
With that in mind, read what I wrote again. I noted that this is not a significant problem. But then I presented the scenario of a person who innocently pays their $10 and goes to PF to work out. A flashing light and alarm goes off specifically in order to humiliate them because they engage in a perfectly normal behavior that is in no sane universe intentionally offensive (grunting, clanking heavy weights ). And the company proudly touts their policy of humiliating customers in their advertising. This is objectivey offensive. Recognizing that doesn’t in any way marginalize “real” discrimination. In fact, recognizing a general principle of not shaming and singling people out tends to enhance efforts to fight all kinds of discrimination because it encourages a community of “all of us” rather and a bunch of competing “us against them” groups.13 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
I belong to PF, a community rec center, and a workplace gym - I’ve been a gym rat my entire adult life so I’ve seen it all when it comes to gym cultures.
I’m offended by very little, including PF animosity. I’m more amused than anything with this, the faux outrage / faux victim-hood associated with poking fun at “lunks”, as if they are some downtrodden race of people who are getting discriminated against. Can we redraft the 14th Amendment to include lunks? Check with your local Congressman, anything is possible.
The TV advertising targets a set of behaviors which are greatly exaggerated for amusement and easy to refrain from engaging in - the best response is to not give PF your ten bucks and invest your time in causes with actual victims who need your help, the bros at the gym are going to be just fine.
On the scale of problems in the world, this one is pretty minor. But... your post seems really entitled and dismissive to me. You get that there are PFs where real people in the actual world who innocently paid their 10 bucks and went to work out have had a loud noise and a flashing light single them out for ridicule, right? But.. they'll be just fine? This experience was only "poking fun at them"? And you know that's how they feel about it how exactly? Because you say so? And while you're at it, you'll also give them a dismissive nickname and mock the idea that maybe this is a bad idea?
Here's an idea --- re-read what you wrote, substituting an offensive term for some other group for "lunks" and "bros" and see how it sounds to you. It's not a good look.
So being a lunk or a bro, which is entirely a choice based upon one’s behavior, is the same as being a racial or ethnic minority, handicapped, homosexual, etc? No, just stop with this, seriously, you are marginalizing real discrimination and offensiveness.
I find that the ability to step back and actually listen to others is really helpful in discussions like this. I hear your concern about trivializing “real discrimination.” I’m technically a member of a group that has suffered a lot of discrimination, and while that’s not a big part of my identity I somewhat get the concern, although my personal experience of ethnic hate has been limited to hearing some random comments and jokes.
As a parent in a diverse, urban public school that’s also a leader in accommodating/accepting trans students (the school, not me - I’m just a dad), I’ve heard this kind of concern before from members of minority communities who are concerned that efforts to accommodate trans students will distract from their issues. The school’s approach - and it makes sense to me generally - is that the key to reaching common ground is to embrace a fundamental principle that discrimination and shaming are wrong, no matter who the targets are.
With that in mind, read what I wrote again. I noted that this is not a significant problem. But then I presented the scenario of a person who innocently pays their $10 and goes to PF to work out. A flashing light and alarm goes off specifically in order to humiliate them because they engage in a perfectly normal behavior that is in no sane universe intentionally offensive (grunting, clanking heavy weights ). And the company proudly touts their policy of humiliating customers in their advertising. This is objectivey offensive. Recognizing that doesn’t in any way marginalize “real” discrimination. In fact, recognizing a general principle of not shaming and singling people out tends to enhance efforts to fight all kinds of discrimination because it encourages a community of “all of us” rather and a bunch of competing “us against them” groups.
Well said! Especially the bolded.1 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
I belong to PF, a community rec center, and a workplace gym - I’ve been a gym rat my entire adult life so I’ve seen it all when it comes to gym cultures.
I’m offended by very little, including PF animosity. I’m more amused than anything with this, the faux outrage / faux victim-hood associated with poking fun at “lunks”, as if they are some downtrodden race of people who are getting discriminated against. Can we redraft the 14th Amendment to include lunks? Check with your local Congressman, anything is possible.
The TV advertising targets a set of behaviors which are greatly exaggerated for amusement and easy to refrain from engaging in - the best response is to not give PF your ten bucks and invest your time in causes with actual victims who need your help, the bros at the gym are going to be just fine.
On the scale of problems in the world, this one is pretty minor. But... your post seems really entitled and dismissive to me. You get that there are PFs where real people in the actual world who innocently paid their 10 bucks and went to work out have had a loud noise and a flashing light single them out for ridicule, right? But.. they'll be just fine? This experience was only "poking fun at them"? And you know that's how they feel about it how exactly? Because you say so? And while you're at it, you'll also give them a dismissive nickname and mock the idea that maybe this is a bad idea?
Here's an idea --- re-read what you wrote, substituting an offensive term for some other group for "lunks" and "bros" and see how it sounds to you. It's not a good look.
So being a lunk or a bro, which is entirely a choice based upon one’s behavior, is the same as being a racial or ethnic minority, handicapped, homosexual, etc? No, just stop with this, seriously, you are marginalizing real discrimination and offensiveness.
That's not at all how I read what that poster was saying.
You seem to be arguing under the assumption that other gyms are in fact full of people who choose to be lunks, so poking fun at said lunks is not that bad.
What I see posters here being offended by is that PF ads insinuated that other gyms are full of lunks (over-muscled stupid barely verbal bros who will scare you and judge you) and that is insulting and unfair to the real people at those gyms who are 99% of the time not at all like that. It's stereotyping people who go to other gyms in an insulting light, very much like other groups of people are stereotyped in an insulting and not accurate way. Of course there are degrees of the seriousness to stereotyping, and some stereotypes are more harmful and dangerous than others. But stereotyping people who workout at other gyms inaccurately as lunks, and then using the fear/distaste for lunks as a reason to go to PF is kind of *kitten*, don't you think? While it might differ in degree from other stereotypes, it's the same idea. I'm going to convince you that all people in this group have this negative trait and scare you into believing my group is better/safer/cleaner etc.8 -
I think that this whole thread shows that people are overly crazy about political correctness.
It's a friggin' funny commercial! (set of commercials)
Come on! If you lift you aren't really insulted. This is more pride disguised as offense....14 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Yes, the marketing scheme is a marketing scheme, but obviously people pay for it, so I fail to see the issue. People who are serious about their health and fitness will likely out grow those gyms and move on to others.
It's insulting to anyone who doesn't fit their target. They can market to whoever they like without being insulting.
I would not be happy if Anytime Fitness (where I'm going) said "no fatties".
Other than that, more power to them.
For a non targeted person to feel insulted by a marketing campaign, in th context of a facility they will never enter, is about the oddest emotional reaction i can think of.
There's a rather obvious difference between saying something is insulting and saying you personally feel insulted by it.
I observe things that I believe are insulting (rude) all the time, of which I am not personally the target. For example, that YouTube video where some woman ranted about fat people. It did not insult me (I was not fat), but I thought it was insulting.
IMO, PF's marketing approach is bad, in that it relies on spreading false stereotypes about other gyms and the people who use them, or in particular people who exercise in certain ways. That's wrong--even if it is effective, in fact. especially if it is effective, as that means the advertising is having an influence--although I am not personally insulted by it (and in fact I would find it embarrassing to fall for PF's advertising).
Many people go to PF for reasons unrelated to the advertising. That's fine, what I find odd is the need to either defend PF's false claims or to argue that the advertising is totally fine, since it's okay to make fun of fit people and of people liking to exercise in certain ways (which it's just not, is sneering "eat a sandwich" at a thin woman okay because thinness is valued in many parts of our culture? is calling people dumb okay because they are also being called strong?). Beyond that, it's clearly not a very good message in a society in which most people are overweight and underactive to mock people (using extremely childish stereotypes) who are into exercising.8 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Yes, the marketing scheme is a marketing scheme, but obviously people pay for it, so I fail to see the issue. People who are serious about their health and fitness will likely out grow those gyms and move on to others.
It's insulting to anyone who doesn't fit their target. They can market to whoever they like without being insulting.
I would not be happy if Anytime Fitness (where I'm going) said "no fatties".
Other than that, more power to them.
For a non targeted person to feel insulted by a marketing campaign, in th context of a facility they will never enter, is about the oddest emotional reaction i can think of.
Finding something objectively offensive seems odd to you?
^^This.
For example, I don't have to be fat in order to find 'fat jokes' offensive.
Exactly! And to take it further:
I don't have to be a racial minority to find racial stereotypes offensive.
I don't have to be gay to find homophobia offensive.
I don't have to be a woman to find sexual discrimination offensive.
The whole idea of stereotyping is dehumanizing. It is in and of itself offensive whether it is directed at you personally or not. That is the objection of many to Planet Fitness's approach.
This has absolutely nothing to do with faux outrage, victimization (I don't fit any of their stereotype that they characterize) or or whether I am targeted and insulted by them. I am neither. I still can find them offensive without being personally insulted, feeling like a victim or feeling outrage, faux or not.
I should have read through to the end, as you said what I was just trying to much more eloquently!5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions