Gillette: Get Woke, Go Broke

I'm sure that Gillette's parent company, Proctor&Gamble, is thrilled:

Gary Coombe called the loss of revenue from those customers a "price worth paying" in a July 29 interview with Marketing Week.

For $6B - Proctor & Gamble could have purchased Harry's Shave Club and Dollar Shave Club outright I would imagine. Easily.
 
Can someone please tell me what was so wrong about commercial????

I consider not bulling and not sexually assaulting to be a good thing.

Am I missing something? All of you boycotting, are you all Ok if your child is bullied or daughter/wife sexually assaulted?
 
RedDuke said:
Can someone please tell me what was so wrong about commercial????

I consider not bulling and not sexually assaulting to be a good thing.

Am I missing something? All of you boycotting, are you all Ok if your child is bullied or daughter/wife sexually assaulted?
More...

Ahhh that advert.

People only say there against those things, they pretend to be nice, obviously most people are assholes and big fans of said stuff secretly.
 
..."In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that "responsive" quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be "more feminine and more attractive." Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health..."

Good grief. Is this the new way of teaching children about the birds and the bees? By throwing gobs of money at academics who don't know what true orgasms are? Who do not know what true love really means?

These researchers are all porn addicts who would not know how to please their mate if it was taught to them in person. Otherwise, they would not have to conduct "studies".

I suppose Masters and Johnson from the 1970s was considered too graphic, so they tossed their insane amount of research out the window, and attempted to redo it with graphs, cute emoticons and spreadsheets. After all, it is to protect the children.
 
Overnight said:
..."In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that "responsive" quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be "more feminine and more attractive." Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health..."

Good grief. Is this the new way of teaching children about the birds and the bees? By throwing gobs of money at academics who don't know what true orgasms are? Who do not know what true love really means?

These researchers are all porn addicts who would not know how to please their mate if it was taught to them in person. Otherwise, they would not have to conduct "studies".

I suppose Masters and Johnson from the 1970s was considered too graphic, so they tossed their insane amount of research out the window, and attempted to redo it with graphs, cute emoticons and spreadsheets. After all, it is to protect the children.
More...

This is how studies are conducted!
 
  1. Gillette cut into loyal customer base with toxic masculinity campaign
    mark_ritson.png
    MARK RITSONFollow@markritson


    THEAUSTRALIAN.COM.AU1:19
    Gillette's latest ad puts spotlight on local firefighters
    Gillette says it is 'shifting the spotlight from social issues to local Australian heroes' after a controversial ad abou...

    881f4c5fc4316623e3cd8921fe8f05a9



    Firefighter and personal trainer Ben Ziekenheiner has been chosen as the new face of a Gillette razor campaign. Picture: AAP
    It was the ad that ensured we started 2019 with controversy and debate. Back in January Gillette launched a bold new advertising campaign aimed squarely at addressing the issue of toxic masculinity.

    Titled “The Best a Man Can Be”, the ad presented Gillette consumers with a 90-second treatise on what was wrong with the culture of masculinity. It went on to suggest a different approach for the future.

    The ad acknowledged some men were changing for the better, but also noted that “some is not enough”. A long line of men operating barbecues chanted “boys will be boys” while bullying and sexism was shown in all its horrendous glory. The ad concluded with the faces of young boys who would become the men of tomorrow staring impassively at the men of today. Would they improve? Could they?

    The critical response to the ad was most positive. Advertising executive Jane Caro concluded this was “what advertising must do”.

    MORE: The Mocker - The cost of Gillette’s wokeness revealed: a non-cash writedown of $12 billion | Mark Ritson - Gillette: how vexed a man can get

    Clementine Ford, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, concluded that “whichever way you slice it, Gillette has achieved its goal”.

    Anne Miles, the managing director of advertising firm International Creative Services, rated the ad very highly.

    But while proponents of the campaign praised its message, their perspective was missing someone important; the consumer. While the press was filled with positive reviews, the data from the actual market was heading in a different direction.

    The small proportion of positive comments online were dwarfed by many more from Gillette consumers who objected to being hectored to like this and who swore they would switch brand as a result.

    The response from the ads’ supporters was to suggest the only people who could find it insulting were those engaged in misogyny and the kind of toxic masculinity the campaign was trying to eliminate.

    But those critics missed the central issue with the campaign and the key point of marketing: you are not the consumer. Gillette has, or rather had, a very loyal market in the male wet shave category. The data shows this group is not only male but also skews notably more conservative in their mindset and beliefs.

    That does not mean they are guilty of toxic masculinity but it does mean if you spend your ad budget telling these people that men need to improve and mend their ways you are likely, not despite but because of your dominant market share, to ultimately regret it.

    If the advertising experts who were quick to resonate with the campaign but slow to recognise they weren’t representative of the target market had paused to consider this point they might have seen the folly in Gillette’s approach.

    That folly became apparent this month with the news that P&G, the owners of Gillette, had written the brand’s value down by some $12 billion ($US8bn).

    To be fair, the reduction is based on a 15-year-old valuation conducted when men shaved more and Gillette had a stranglehold over the market.

    But you can be sure that a slice of the reduction comes from a mistaken ad campaign and the opportunity cost of spending your money pushing political correctness at the expense of brand benefits.

    Gillette took its marketing budget and used it to make a lot of (non-shaving) cultural critics very happy and givemillions of its loyal customers a potent opportunity to reconsider their brand and alter their buying behaviour.

    While the writedown on Gillette cannot be used as direct evidence of January’s failed ad campaign, the company’s glaring change in direction evident in its just-launched new advertising surely can.


    A screenshot from January’s controversial advertisement.
    Gone is the accusatory copy and critical messaging. In its place we now have Ben Ziekenheiner — a big, brave Aussie firefighter who looks like he could extinguish an inferno just by looking at it.

    Big Ben gazes deeply in the mirror and explains that it is mandatory for Australian fire fighters to be clean shaven on the job. His daughter (note, not his son), gazes up at him with unbridled admiration. She hands him a picture she has drawn of him and he reaches down and takes her in his XXL arms and gives her a fatherly squeeze. She watches as he heads out the door to the sound of tinkling pianos.

    It’s an ad straight out of the 1980s. As significant for what it does not say as what it does. And it shows a company attempting a 180 degree turn on their previous work. But it’s also a missed opportunity for Gillette.

    This is a century-old brand. One that must change with the times and one that has to keep showing an aspirational and attractive vision of positive masculinity. When I was a teenager formulating my brand preferences it was men getting into space shuttles and hitting home runs. The dreams of teenage boys have changed but the need for Gillette to speak to them, while reaffirming the purchases of millions of loyal consumers, remains.

    Somewhere between the cliched firefighter of the 80s and the woke message of an addled, purpose-driven marketing department is the right path for Gillette.


    A screenshot from the Gillette advertisement which caused controversy.
    There is a way to move the vision of positive masculinity forward and sell razors doing it.

    But one gets the distinct sense thatGillette, once that most mighty of marketing operations, has lost its way and lost its confidence in the process.

    The big question now facing the company is whether their once loyal customer base will return to the brand as images of firemen, and the other traditional masculine icons that are surely being lined up, take hold. The initial response to the new campaign suggests a tricky path ahead.

    As one former Gillette consumer tweeted last week: “Hey guys! Come back! You know that whole thing where we called you sexist pigs and your sons rapists in training? We were kidding! Now buy our razors again. Please.”

    MARK RITSON
    COLUMNIST
    Mark Ritson is an adjunct professor at Melbourne Business School. He has a PhD in Marketing and works as an international brand consultant. He has been voted Professional Publishers Association Business Columni... Read

    #31
 
Mens razor sales across all brands has been declining sharply, beards & scruff have become popular. Many men are aware that surveys show that women are more attracted to men with facial hair those that are clean shaven.

The bad guys in the commercial have scruff - the good guys are clean shaven. This add is trying to reel in the growing trend for men to shave less or not at all - surprised so many missed what seems so obvious, a razor company trying to increase sales.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top