Mark Ritson, maybe you’re wrong, wrong, wrong?
International Creative Services managing director Anne Miles disagrees with Mark Ritson on one key issue: purpose. Oh, and that Gillette ad.
Mark Ritson really is my marketing hero: super intelligent, a downright good guy and fellow speak-my-mind kinda guy. I don’t think there is one thing he’s ever said that wasn’t a well-formed argument with both top end industry experience and academia behind it. I don’t pretend to be a marketing guru anywhere near his credentials here, but there is just one thing that we don’t agree on: brand purpose. I believe brand purpose is here to stay, will be forming legislation and policy very soon, and is what the new consumer wants.
As a conscious capitalist I’m all about business doing the right thing, and think brands and marketers have a big place (even a responsibility) in making our world a better place. We’ve done some damage as an industry over time and we need to at least rectify our own wrongs, and be responsible about what we produce from here. I don’t see it as trite, like Mark does, but do agree some brands are inauthentic in the way they do it. Regardless, I’m thinking that if brands are ‘doing purpose’ just for commercial gain, and they are still making impact in the world, then frankly I don’t really care so much about their motivations so long as some good is getting done.
Agree on every single point Anne, incredibly well articulated.
The issue of the ad is not the message nor is this brand purpose marketing, the problem is is that it just an ‘ad’. There is no substance behind what as an organization they are doing differently to address the significant and worthy issues that the ad raises. It is a cynical grab for sales, profit driven not purpose driven (a $1m per year donation is trivial for a brand as big as P&G / Gillette). Lets see p&g’s body of work and support for change from grass roots, helping to reduce young males suicide rate, domestic violence, youth education etc etc and then Gillette have a platform that allows them to authentically connect their brand to the changes that we all want.
from the company that sells skin whitening cream to women in Asia…lolz
There is a ton of misinformation about whitening creams in Asia.
They are sold to both genders, not just female (but I’m sure females purchase more as with all cosmetic, health and beauty products).
I’m addition, it’s not to be like anglo-saxons. Dark skin is associated with being low class / caste, as they traditionally spend all day in the sun doing manual labour. Whereas white skin suggests wealth or upper class.
Still discriminatory, but it’s not caused by MNCs selling products for Asian females to be more like white folk.
And the company that sells skin darkening cream (tanning) to white folks. Oh…wait, that’s different, because of ideology, or is it power, or perceived power. Geez, this virtual signalling is confusing.
It”s different because tanning cream doesn’t cause facial disfigurement and isn’t toxic, unlike whitening cream.
Whitening skin is part of asian culture to whiten skin. Always has been. Always will be. Im asian and would rather see people purchase whitening creams from a brand than bleach off the streets.
Using a voice they have to raise awareness to a huge social issue isn’t good enough/or ok?
Nice article, Anne – as a fellow conscious capitalist I also believe Purpose is here to stay. However green-washing and white-washing will increasingly be called out by customer-activists, so if there is not a strong and credible connection between company/business purpose and marketing purpose, those organisations will face an inevitable backlash. It’s essential that their motivations are true in order for them to deliver continuity on the purpose-led messaging that they initiate and actually generate sustainable growth for shareholders and other stakeholders.
Thanks for the support @Rosanna Iacano and @YES. 🙂 I agree that brands have to be congruent to be really doing the right thing and sitting with the customer well, but we also need to accept that brands and people wont be perfect from day one. I think constant improvement is the key here, and to acknowledge what they are not getting right. Someone sent me a shot of Gillette’s promo girls at a racing car event which didn’t seem to sit well with this campaign. I’m not sure how old it is but trusting that they are making inroads across the brand experience. Let’s hold them accountable shall we?
The shot in question of the ‘Gillette grid girls’ is an internet shadow from 2011 Easter Races at Zandvoort…
Thanks @Valentino Rossi. I had hoped it was retro. Great to know.
nice one Anne .
What industry experience does he have? I see a lot of academic experience, but not sure what you mean by industry experience as i don’t think he’s actually ever experienced the real thing?
Please don’t be mistaken that an academic doesn’t have industry experience. Mark Ritson is one of the most credible people in our industry, and working at the highest level with national and global brands in a consulting role. Please check facts before throwing dirt here. I have the utmost respect for @Mark Ritson, and don’t be mistaken that my difference here is any way dissing his abilities and credentials. At the very least he shares his name when he makes a stand, and doesn’t hide behind anonymous slagging.
Honestly I think you’re clutching at straws.
If any other piece of marketing communication received 10 times as many downvotes as it did for upvotes (as this piece of work has), it would be labelled a disaster by all and sundry. If the client had to hire additional social media staff to cleanse their profiles of vitriol and negative comments, there would be mutterings.
But because this piece of work happens to fit a segment of the population’s personal political narrative, many commenters like yourself are coming out of the woodwork to vigorously defend it.
Truth is, you can quote as much data about how many people believe brands should take a stand about social issues as you like – but that is completely trumped by the REAL data coming out about this piece of work. Every indicator shows that it has gone down like a lead balloon with quite a large portion of it’s intended audience.
Of course, if even more important data – sales numbers – shows a boost in the next few months, then of course Gillette are geniuses and they’ve shown the way forward for marketing to men.
However, when you take the rose coloured glasses off and look at it without emotional attachment, most of the early indicators we use in the industry to gauge whether a piece of communication is a success or not would suggest that Gillette is in a bit of trouble.
sales already starting to show a boost
Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate it. Any data you can share? Curious about this…
No sorry, you’re wrong – sales have NOT shown a boost. In fact, P&G have released a statement that “Sales have not been hurt yet”, so don’t think they are expecting a boost either!
Didn’t realise that believing the “best in men, to say the right thing and to act the right way” was a personal political narrative.
Meanwhile if someone had tried to prove the success of this campaign with a positive YouTube like count, Mark would have been the first person to laugh them out of the room.
You’re right though, some of the advocates might be measuring success incorrectly. We’ve been caught up in the significance of the message rather than the success of it. The fact that a campaign that says “don’t be a dick” has caused so much outrage proves to us that this is the most important campaign of the year, whether it sells razors or not.
If this was done in an uplifting way, and not in a scolding manner and you might have a point.
The ham-fisted execution means that the out-take to a large percentage of the male population is somehow we’re all taking the blame for the small percentage of “dicks” as you say. That manhood itself is a problem. That men are toxic.
Advertising talks to real people. Would you say something like this to your father? Would you tell him that he is toxic during a family dinner? Or that if someone else who happens to be male that he doesn’t know IS toxic, that he is somehow complicit in it, simply because he is a man?
If your answer is yes, then I think you have made the largest mistake in advertising – to disrespect the person it is targeted at. And I think your dad would send you to your room.
The vast majority of men are decent, hard-working, respectful and fair minded. A personal products brand telling us to take on the collective guilt for those that are not is frankly patronising and rude.
Ok – off the top of my head. Something along the lines of “We believe in the greatness of men. We build. We dream. We protect. We know what is fair. And fight for what is right. Because we care. Not only about those we love, but about how the world is shaped. Gillette. The best a man can be.”
There you go.
Your message of ‘don’t be a dick’ is woven in there, but it is done in a way that makes men feel good about themselves. That makes us proud of who we are and what we have achieved.
See, Dove focused on ‘you are amazing, but you don’t know it yet’. It’s an uplifting message. Gillette are not. They are school marm-ish. They lecture.
Some men are coming out openly and talking about how this piece of communication frustrates and angers them. Many more will silently switch to a competitive product without joining the conversation.
I fail to see how Gillette has done anything other than having made a massive misstep with this campaign.
No, a personal political narrative is using phrases in the communication such as ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘MeToo’.
I’m with Ritson on this one. Purchase intent and purchase behaviour are two different things….consider what we say we’d do to protect the environment vs the actual purchasing decisions we make when we part with our hard-earned.
Brand purpose will appeal to a small group of ‘activist’ type consumers (and industry people looking to find meaning in their work where there is likely none), but beyond that most people will buy what’s in front of them, what’s habit and what’s easy.
Our industry exists in a bubble where we simply don’t understand or relate to the things that occupy the time and mental energy of the majority of the population – saving the world and righting every perceived wrong is just not important to the average punter.
There’s plenty of purpose-driven companies and brands out there, and the market will decide if they like what’s on offer and pay accordingly for it. Most large, long-established companies are not built on a foundation of high-minded principles, they are a legacy of the era of make it cheap, market the shit out of it and enrich shareholders. Let’s not pretend it’s anything but that.
Make a decent product, get it to me at a good price and if I’m inclined to save the world leave it with me.
Really well said, Anne.
I don’t believe brand purpose is a total whitewash. What I agree with Mark on is when it’s waved as a flag by every brand that wants to try and inject itself into the idea it’s purposeful (in the context of having a social, moral or ethical stand) when it’s clearly not.
That doesn’t mean brands can’t and shouldn’t have a social stand. What it needs to be though is meaningful, borne out of business and marketing strategy, and be bound to the fibre of the brand’s being in such a way that it’s more that advertising lacquer.
Thanks so much for writing this.
How can you be a ‘conscious capitalist’ yet ‘push for brands to even have impact at a legislative level’?
“Good thing I have my Gillette razor now that the government outlawed face and body hair!”
When brands start “forming legislation and policy very soon” it will be the end of Democracy, and the beginning of horrific rule by Commerce, without freedom of thought, choice or conscience.
Gillette asking men to more more “mindful” because look at how bad men can be,really has crossed a moral line from capitalism to manipulation.
This article’s simplistic pontification and lofty thoughts about brands’ “purpose” is zeitgeist at its worst.
Brands already have though…
Uber’s favourite strategy is to launch illegally into markets and then get enough people to use it that the Government has to legalise it or risk public backlash.
See also Google Maps.
Nice examples! Very true, @Too Late. Thank you.
So, what part of Gun, Gambling, Cigarettes and Alcohol lobbying and impact on legislation do you think is OK, but brands doing good can’t have impact? Curious moral alignment here.
Unfortunately there’s no evidence to suggest purpose driven marketing is more effective at driving business growth. (Yes people might say it matters to them, but no one has been able to prove it actually impacts buying behaviour.)
At the very least check this out…
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/unilever-says-brands-purpose-growing-twice-speed-others-portfolio/1345772
There are so many examples of this if you look. I just don’t have the time to dig them all out here. Check out consciouscapitalism.org as a start and plenty of great case studies too.
There is plenty of sales based proof. Feel free to share proof where it HASN’T worked… keen to have a very fair investigation here.
Hi Anne,
I’ve written about this Unilever example in my chapter in Eat Your Greens. Unfortunately there is no detail to identify the drivers behind the growth.
“However, it’s difficult to determine whether the sustainable, purpose-driven nature of these brands was the only driving factor. For example, the company notes that, as of 2017, there are 18 Sustainable Living brands in the top 40 Unilever brands, up from 12 in 2015. With an additional six brands now counted in the numbers, there is a possibility that growth could have come, at least in part, by simply including more brands in the portfolio. In addition, it’s unclear whether the brands that fall outside the portfolio are in slower growing categories, fewer or lower growth markets, lack innovation, have been disrupted by new entrants to market, or have been hurt by insufficient investment. “
Good info there. I agree we’re missing data we need to be really robust about this but the lack of data around a new thing doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t right. We change the results by what we measure and the fact we may not yet be able to measure in the same way we do past conventions may mean we are just stuck in outdated conventions and definitely in unconscious bias. People whio have data sets from the past can be stubborn about letting go of them when they are no longer relevant.
I do think @Unilver is not stupid. They know clearly what is working for them. I can’t see anyone convincing them to stop with these results. Just saying.
Sorry Anne, but the burden on proof is on the person making the claim. That’s like saying “You don’t have any proof that God doesn’t exist, therefore he does.”
I think a lot of people are missing the point of Mark’s write up on the Gillette advert. The point is not that brand purpose should or shouldn’t be a part of your marketing strategy, the point is that Gillette have marginalised a significant portion of their customers without actually addressing their relationship with the Gillette brand for the sake of shifting their brand purpose. By marginalising a large portion of their core consumer base they risk not just having zero impact to sales and brand metrics, but actually having a negative impact. Not exactly what you would define as a good campaign. It doesn’t really matter whether you think the ad is preachy or inspirational or being more socially responsible. This is in contrast to the Nike example where they put forward a campaign which would marginalise a fringe of their customers and focus on a change in brand perception to the customers they want to have as their base.
Was the Holden campaign really that bad? Watching it without specifically looking for gender stereotyping, nothing stood out to me. Yes, perhaps they could have featured a couple of more ‘power shots’ of women. However, form a commercial point of view the ad is product centric, catchy and funny – it does what it is supposed to do, which is to sell cars.
All I can say is….
https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/correcting-unconscious-bias-in-marketing-creative-tickets-49625959581#
You need it, believe me @Michael
Intelligent debate.
No rancour, just intelligent debate.
There should be more of it.
Thanks Anne AND Mark.
Pinkos don’t shave anyhow, they need a hipster-vention for their beards. Make shaving great again!
If a programmatic tree fell in the woods and Ritson wasn’t there to critique it on the panel circuit, did it even make a campaign?
Gillette market share was already tanking:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gillette-bleeding-market-share-cuts-prices-of-razors-1491303601
This is just a desperate gamble to try and shake things up.
Yes, Yes and a million times yes!
This describes all of the outrage going on:
“anyone that thinks this ad is negative or blaming needs to look at themselves and question their privilege.”
If you are not part of it, then you shouldn’t be offended – that simple. Decent men are not offended by this, only the fragile ones that don’t like being told the truth. No one said all of you are the problem, but most of the problem comes from men – are you guys going to complain in the internet “not all men” or will you join us and stand up when you see something that is not right? Fragile masculinity truly is a thing, you can’t tell men the truth – other man rape, other man are rude, other men objectify women – if you are not part of them – GREAT FOR YOU – just don’t try to silence the truth.
Unfortunately you’re displaying the same tone-deaf, tin ear characteristics of the ad itself.
You haven’t contributed to the discussion in an open and generous manner, you’ve just pointed your finger at the men who disagree with you as being ‘fragile’. No better than name calling. In fact – it is bullying.
I’m not articulate enough to be able to write and formulate a a response that carries this discussion further, however I champion ‘Good Stuff’s’ comment. As you were.
Find myself agreeing with bits of Mark’s and bits of Anne, yr. point about policy and legislation is important.
– I hope it works for Gillette, I doubt it, and in fairness to Mark he wholly supported the intent, thought there was merit in the strategy, eviscerated the execution and mocked their annual $6bn revenue to $1m ‘masculinity CSR’ budget. (c.f. Harry’s commit 1% of sales)
– Personally I don’t find the ad negative or blaming, I found it sanctimonious and unconvincing, very much unlike say Louise Benson’s devastating new collection of poetry, ‘Vertigo and Ghost’, addressing similar themes. Read them, you’ll see what I mean, and why I think the ad reveals the limits of what advertising can hope to achieve socially, it’s asking too much, and corporate execs just don’t have the creative sensitivity.
– The trap ‘purpose’ is going to fall in is the same one Anand Giridiharadas identifies in his new book Winners Takes All, specifically brands trying to right wrongs that their companies are creating. “Doing good with profits”, “giving back in some way”, reveals the lack of strategy.
– Purpose will only work as part of a systemic change in the economic system, meaning, ‘making the world a better place’, by paying workers a fair wage, sharing profits with the people that create them, universal healthcare, democratic systems of business governance, building zero waste and green production, & corporations paying their flippin’ taxes. For starters.
– This buy-one-give-one-conscious-capitalism type ‘purpose’ is superficial flannel propagated by B-schools that doesn’t change anything except make’s corporations feel good about themselves while propping up a busted model on life support. It’s banal vapid agencies pitching purpose as ‘the new digital’. It’s endless purpose workshops and ‘values’ statements with no market innovations.
– Purpose should mean asking, “what is value”? Why is $ our measure of value? Should it be? Is the company creating value or extracting value? Most corporations are value extractors not value creators, no ‘purpose’ statement will get around that. (See Marianna Mazucato “Value of Everything”)
– It’s true we have a huge responsibility in shaping our social relations, and historically this is a function of policy (e.g. motivation researchers role in formation of post WW2 consumer economy, and still dominant ‘growth’ model).
– Where are the serious discussions with real ballast that align progressive marketing and brand thinking with new economic thinking? What role does ‘purpose’ have in breaking the cultural logic of acquisitive individualism and creating a more just world?
There’s obviously going to be markets and consumption in the future, it’s up to us to design the consumer economy that we think will work for everyone. It’s a huge task that requires working closely with academics to understand how we got here and with policy makers to shape what comes next.
If we don’t get serious about it, then the Mark’s of the world have every reason to ridicule it.
The issue is consumption. Advertising and marketing promote this and are responsible for many of the issues we are seeing. I am all for them creating thought provoking advertisements but then they do leave themselves open to critique. I no longer use Gillette. My opinion is that if you lecture people on being better you should yourself try to be better. Like ditch the single use plastic you use in your blades. But that will never happen because it hits profit.
Great piece Anne.
Beyond the great and timely concept.
I was surprised by two aspects of Gillette’s campaign.
1. How an ad clearly depicting two kinds of men – the toxic and non-toxic – can be ‘rewritten’ by some to say: ‘Gillette is saying ALL men are toxic’. Huh???
2. Gillette has not walked the talk (at least I can’t find any evidence of tangible support that backs their words). i.e. for men’s mental health or support for fairer community etc. This should have been the first thing they had in place behind the words.
Pepsi was rightly slammed for its faux (and trite) ‘anti-war’ demo featuring Kendal Jenner in 2017. They may have been paying homage to Coke’s Hilltop 1971 peace campaign, but that was trailblazing back then, purely because it offered a (soft) political POV in an era of hard sell. Forty Winks ‘Serious about sleep’ is another puff piece – where is the evidence you really are for sleep, beyond selling beds??? What a missed opportunity!
Today people expect more than just talk. Pedigree has dog adoptions, Dove has ‘women’s self esteem fund’, You’ve got to walk the walk and ensure you have the right defence strategy in place to counter the inevitable cynics and in Gillette’s case, many trolls.
Gillette needs to get on the front foot asap with a plan to actually support men being their best, beyond a good shave!
So so true! Cant agree more!
CC
i think we are all sat at the precipice of a new day in advertising – or maybe for a while now – but it’s more the medium, as its derivative value, versus the medium as in old school adverts, as the postal service for the message – but i think because of the tech industry’s diligence, we compact these branding problems into more of a dilution issue.
we never sat around as creatives (in the 90s), defending our work via the medium – there are planners, and a host of other account planning executives from all angles debating this. and the golden age of messaging, is now more a playground of its technical forte.
less work for creatives? also, less medals, less attention, and less research going into the detail of myriads of value – rather than the simplicity of what sticks today.
the main issue may have been work that cuts through, but today it’s what actually gets delivered. it’s a totally different kind of screen. 🙂
There once was a time when advertising could “teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.” The world has moved on. Nobody, except advertising people, wants brands to take the high moral ground. We now have social media to do that. And Joe Blow now suspects that behind any big brand is a billionaire who thinks making the world a better place is making it a place where profits increase. If you want to change the world, go do it somewhere else.