The Gillette controversy could be good for sales – if it holds its nerve
While the Gillette ad certainly created column inches, will it actually translate into cold, hard cash? Pure Public Relations' Phoebe Netto attempts to cut through the noise.
Gillette’s ad has cut deep and touched a nerve. That is what the brand wanted. In a more crowded market that is diluting its market share, Gillette needed to cut through the noise with a razor blade.
And cut it did.
Huge brand exposure, talkability, media coverage, and influence. Never before have feelings about a shaving brand been so strong.
Yes, Gillette went out of its way to be provocative and knew that despite having the narrator say that “some” men “act the right way”, that its ad would be polarising.
But whenever a brand chooses to be polarising, they really mean that they are fine with not being popular with everyone but they want most people to like them. In this case both the women who buy Gillette for men, and the men who buy razors.
And the test to see if Gillette have succeeded in doing this won’t so much be in immediate changes to sales, but in how they proceed from here. This ad was a big move, and you don’t get many chances to do that again and maintain attention and interest. So they need to leverage this voice and build on the conversation.
Gillette have subtly acknowledged that they need to change their own marketing if they are to “act the right way” that is promoted in this ad, so now they need to see it through.
The campaign wins on the relevance test, which is (just) one of the reasons why Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner attempt at commodity activism failed (hard).
Where this will fall down is the authenticity test. Without genuine commitment to change beyond a donation, this will struggle to move beyond hype to a lasting brand association.
When a brand takes the moral high ground (especially when, if we’re being honest, the ultimate goal here is to boost sales), you open yourself to scrutiny. And when a brand’s critical assessment of people’s behaviour touches a nerve (however necessary that is), you should expect that all future campaigns, brand positioning, and business actions will be judged.
Whether it is talk about pink tax, Gillette’s board and employee gender balance, or their 1960s Mad Men-style ad copy used to market to women. Those criticisms will always be louder than any recognition at the previous attempts at moral high ground, like its old Use Your And ad.
Another example of this was Google and Facebook taking a public stand against a proposed executive order in the U.S. to ban immigrants from a number of Muslim-majority countries. Their strong comments condemning the order were followed by news reports that Google and Facebook had accepted millions in anti-immigration ad dollars. Goodbye goodwill and any perception of being leaders for positive change.
Harsh? The heavy scrutiny would be reduced if there was more ‘carrot’ and less ‘stick’ in the message. For example, if the Gillette ad focused more heavily on celebrating the commendable actions of men (like they show at the end of the ad), and if future campaigns challenge toxic behaviours that are not limited to one gender, that would be more palatable and wouldn’t invite as much criticism. But it would also be less attention-grabbing and sticky.
Gillette included a carrot and a stick, and the result was huge noise all pointing to them. This could work in its favour if they don’t see this as a flash in the pan message. They need to own this now and be thoughtful in using their platform to do good, including to communicate the same message in different ways.
Gillette have had the luxury of quietly correcting their PR mistakes in the past (think Tiger Woods, or their Get Closer to Your Man campaign that told women that body hair is what is stopping men from having a close relationship with them).
Source: Independent
But going forward, if something about Gillette’s brand attracts criticism or falls in to their much publicised definition of ‘toxic masculinity’, then silence is not an option.
Otherwise the talkability will make the huge amount of ‘free’ media, costly.
Controversy can boost sales, and it can hurt sales in a way that is hard to recover from. When brands court controversy by being provocative, they better make sure that they are authentic. It makes sense and when done well it makes dollars too.
Phoebe Netto is the founder of Pure Public Relations.
I hope Gillette does stick to its guns. Then, when it goes broke, it will be an object lesson to any other marketer that endorsing toxic feminist stereotypes of men comes at a price.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
Hear hear.
And this after so many year of Gilette and others charging a sizeable premium for the feminised (ie. pink and rounded) equivalent of common items like razors. Utter humbug.
User ID not verified.
P&G ad says “To say the right thing. To act the right way. Some already are, in ways big and small. But some is not enough.” but it should have said “To say the right thing. To act the right way. Most men already are, in ways big and small. Now help the rest to get the best”<- a far better slogan and nobody would have felt offended. We all agree on the fact that the meaning of “some” is closer to the meaning of “few” than to the meaning of “many” or even to “most”. So how come that the defenders of this ad say “the ad doesn’t say all guys or most guys are bad”? All defenders of this ad show us another ad where with “some” the advertiser meant “most” or “many”. P&G is toxic to the world and splits humane society to make more profit. #toxicpg
User ID not verified.
I can’t help but think you are one of those that live in a ideological fairy land, this isn’t opposing an executive order that proactively attacked people, it’s an advert that actively attacks the character of a majority of men for the misdeeds of a few!
I agree with Chris lets hope the car crash happens in full view, we’re tired of this toxic cultural movement.
User ID not verified.
It would be nice if they made a ad about toxic femininity, there is much more of that these days. Privileged women who weaponize there sexuality for social status, control, and personal gain. Also, this author and all the women who thinks it’s there place to point at men and cry foul, as if your some God like entities.
User ID not verified.
Attacking your customer base in an ad makes sense?
LOL
What’s next for P&G ? Always ad attacking women?
User ID not verified.
I don’t care if Gillette “holds its nerve”, they lost me as a customer, among most of my friends, for good. How dare they judge me, a customer of 25 years.
User ID not verified.
I don’t think this ad will ever run on mainstream TV. As far as I’m aware it’s only ever been released on social media. If we don’t see it on mainstream TV then your question about Gillette holding it’s nerve will be answered Phoebe.
It’s obviously made for the US.
Personally I think it will go down like a lead balloon in middle America (Trumps rust belt).
User ID not verified.
This is a good point. If Gillette had any nerve whatsoever, if they had a real commitment to this position, a belief that it would drive sales, then we would be seeing this ad during the Superbowl.
But then the P&G execs are not quite that stupid.
User ID not verified.
Regardless of gender everyone needs to stand on their own character, values and morals, treat all people with respect and appreciate the productivity that diversity brings. Phoebe brings valid focus that Gillette would do well to own this now and build on it.
User ID not verified.
At the outset the ad is deplorable to begin with, but purely from a marketing point of view, the timing is the determining factor of its failure.
This ad in 2016 or the beginning of 2017 would have had a completely different reception, unfortunately for Gillette (and most other brands), who don’t care one way or another on any issue as long as there is a boost in sales and brand value, they failed to see toxic femininity was reaching critical mass and the pushback was inevitable. It fell upon Gillette to provide the fulcrumatic point of the pushback.
User ID not verified.
Problem is Kerry-Ann that Gillette can’t ‘own it’ because they don’t treat everyone with respect themselves. They blatantly disrespect all women by charging them more than men for almost identical products, the so called pink tax. It is estimated to be an average of over 20% in the UK with the razor category showing the most alarming mark ups (34% in some cases). They are doing nothing in areas where men are struggling – suicide, homelessness. They have glibly tried to piggy back an issue without getting their own house in order first.
User ID not verified.
It’s definitely had an impact on me, I’ll never buy another Gillette product for the rest of my life.
User ID not verified.
I’ve used Gillette for 25 years. No more, nor any other P&G products in future.
User ID not verified.
The commercial itself isn’t the point. It’s this stuff that will really do the damage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj8VpuLSkHY
User ID not verified.
Great intentions, average strategy and really poor execution
User ID not verified.
And the other thing is that it only showed white males behaving ‘badly’, not any other colour. It was other colours telling them to behave better. Even more gutless.
User ID not verified.
gillette…
Bought their products for years.
I foundthe you tube adv so “toxic” and biased- Gillette actually gave me a reason never to buy any of their products again.
Never trust a company that takes the moral high ground.
Good riddance forever Gillette !
User ID not verified.