Gillette’s ‘toxic masculinity’ ad is ‘opportunistic and hollow’ – it will alienate its customers, but please #MeToo movement
It’s a good example of a brand misunderstanding the power (and in this case, the meaning) of its own big idea and coming up way short by making advertising for everyone rather than for its defined, loyal target audience – argues adland veteran David Mayo
If I wasn’t such a balanced and moderate model example of a modern progressive male, the ‘Believe’ ad by Gillette would be a commercial that might irritate me a little bit. The reason being because it mansplains all the things that we as humans – and on closer inspection – men, should and shouldn’t do to other humans.
On first view, I thought it was a parody in the style of Smirnoff Tea Party. I was waiting for the punchline. But it never came.
The film is actually telling me off by examining a few social ills and laying them at my feet by assuming that all men are, well, just ‘men’, rather than Gentlemen (which I am told was the original intent of the line ‘Gillette, the best a man can get’ way back in 1988).
In one scene in Believe, a dad breaks up a fight between kids. In another a guy tells his pal that its not cool to catcall a passing woman. In another, a dad breaks up a group of bullies.
Nothing in this toe-curling film is anything that any of we men wouldn’t ordinarily do as part of our everyday lives. What is fails most heroically at is the ability to distinguish between doing good and do-gooding.
It rightly and obviously says that bullying is bad. Similarly it says that we should respect one another as people. Nobody is going to disagree with that. But then you realise that it’s talking to me as though I don’t know these things already. Ham-fistedly trying to reflect the boundaries which are being re-written in our society every day, instead of leading with behavior and values that reflect the good in our society.
So why has this famous and much-loved brand with its deep, masculine promise of a tagline chosen to beat their core consumers with a stick called ‘toxic masculinity’? The truth it, it hasn’t chosen for that to happen at all. In all the excitement, the idea seems to have run away with them and the seeds of a great strategy got lost in the social hubris sweeping our feeds daily.
We can all see what the brand and the communication wanted to say. The strategic intent is solid but as sometimes happens to many of us; when it stood up to speak the brain didn’t connect with the mouth and a platitudinous op-ed was created.
It’s a good example of a brand misunderstanding the power (and in this case, the meaning) of its own big idea and coming up way short by making advertising for everyone rather than for its defined, loyal target audience.
And that target audience doesn’t have to be split along gender lines, if we are talking about it. Brands must support values that anyone can share but by asking and encouraging men to set an example, by asking men to lead by their actions and to ‘be-the-people-that-the-people-around-them-think-they-are-and-want-them-to-be-in-a-world-where-we-are-all-looking-for-positive-role-models-to-believe-in’ is a great place to start.
Interpreting that by starting with the assumption that all of society is suffering from a severe bout of something we have decided to call ‘toxic masculinity’ which needs fixing, is only going to look opportunist and hollow.
Gillette is not an opportunistic or hollow brand. It is strong, reliable, universal and constant – just like the consumers it is designed for and the men it is designed to represent. If anything, it is up to brands like Gillette to remain solid among the winds of social change and to support the people who buy their products. But here, it has stooped to populism and hubris.
This work has been made with the lobby in mind rather than the consumer and it escapes the fact that if you try and stand for everything or the wrong thing, you stand for nothing. David Ogilvy famously observed that nobody ever built a statue of a committee and this an example of why.
Gillette men – gentlemen – by definition do not need advertising to tell them how to behave and set an example. They probably expect their brands to reflect their values and their beliefs. This film does set out to do that but it quickly becomes worthy and preachy in a tedious, self-righteous way.
Gillette definitely has a role to support, represent and uphold positive male values and in this case, in the same way that other brands support their core audiences, they are best placed to support men. But this work just makes me feel yet again that men are bad and somehow need fixing.
As a reference point on how to do this, look at brands that support women like Dove, Always and Spanx which are manifestly pro-women but in an inclusive and reflective way. They publicly support their audience and help others around them to do the same. They also work hard behind the scenes to put their money where their mouths are by supporting women in many positive ways. They feel real, focused and positive. No finger-wagging here.
And broader brands like Smirnoff, Vodafone, and Brewdog have all managed to support women and make a positive difference without annoying the core who buy their products.
So could Gillette have not have done this in a different way? Like women, men have their image on the outside but they also have their own anxieties and pressures, so rather than add to those, Gillette might have spoken to their sons, their daughters and the women in their lives if they were wanting to do something positive and supportive in society.
If you’re going to stand for something, stand for something in support of something and use positive energy to make a positive difference. It is not advertising’s job to collectivise and admonish – there’s enough of that in this toxic world already.
We always talk about the ‘benefit of the benefit’ in this business; ‘The best a man can be’ set out to be an inspirational totem to men. It’s a great idea. It could have been executed in ways which inspire and motivate but in choosing the shortcut to a movement – while Gillette will have their hands full with the debate that this work will undoubtedly cause – will it build the brand and defend their category beating number one positioning, or is it the first step in becoming another me-too brand?
Mayo doesn’t need Gillette to tell him how to behave
David Mayo worked at Ogilvy and WPP for 21 years – for many years as a CEO in Asia – and is now working as a consultant and serving on the boards of several companies
Well said Mayo.
I too thought it was a parody on first view. A satire of posturing purpose-led brands, using Gillette as an obvious example of a brand that should not be in this space. If someone told me this was an SNL skit, I’d be saying “well done”. Sadly, it’s real.
And without going through the myriad ways this ad gets it so wrong – from both a socio-political and branding point of view, let’s talk about the craft: it’s truly awful. Looks like it was put together using clips from the edit room floor.
Reply“But this work just makes me feel yet again that men are bad and somehow need fixing.”
uhhhh, great work on picking up on the point my old, white, dude. men are bad and men do need fixing.
if you see an ad where the message is ‘be a better person’ and feel personally attacked, uh maybe the ad ain’t the issue.
welcome to not living in the 50s anymore my dude.
ReplyWell “dude”, your assumption there is that all old, white men are bad. How progressive of you.
Your cheap ageist comments makes me think there is much, much room for you to become “a better person”.
Suggest next time, you respond to the substance of the article – that this is a strategic brand mis-step from Gillette – and not resort to ad hominem attacks.
ReplyWell, “dude” isn’t wrong. What’s the strategic mis-step, that Gillette chose to say men can be better? Are they really alienating men by highlighting some of the behaviours that they, as a brand, consider unacceptable in today’s landscape?
Perhaps they will alienate the “it’s just locker room talk” crowd. But if you look at the conversations it’s started, from a marketing perspective, you could hardly say it’s not worked. And I’m pretty certain Gillette will find new customers in those that support the idea that some masculine behaviour aren’t really socially acceptable anymore.
I’m pretty sure the creatives behind the ad weren’t ignorant of the conversations it would start. If one thinks otherwise, then one probably still lives in the era where ads are served to consumers on TV.
ReplyWhat’s the strategic mis-step?
ReplyThis article articulates it much better than I ever could:
https://www.marketingweek.com/2019/01/15/mark-ritson-gillette-ad-toxic-masculinity/
Ahhhhhhh.
You seem to ignore the fact that the ad takes the fine art of Being Patronising to truly vomit-worthy depths.
This ad is more tone-deaf than a Motorhead roadie.
Reply“uhhhh, great work on picking up on the point my old, white, dude. men are bad and men do need fixing.”
How ageist, racist and sexist can you get?
It may be time to stop blaming people of other ages, races or genders for all your problems.
ReplyHe who has done no wrong needn’t feel personally offended when someone asks ‘shouldn’t we aim higher and do better’.
ReplyI do understand your point and agree the ad does seem heavy-handed, however, I believe the assumption that “nobody is going to disagree” with the ideas that bullying is bad and that we should respect one another as people, is possibly a little out of touch. A scroll through Twitter or even the comments section of YouTube will remind you that these obvious ideas are anything but obvious to many, many people.
ReplyWhen you consider women are the primary grocery shoppers in most households and purchase more than 50% of men’s products, I don’t think this ad is a mis-step at all. I think they knew exactly what they were doing.
Assuming that women are moved by the ad.
ReplyNot something we should take for granted.
I’m amazed any of you shave given how clearly sensitive, and thin your skins are. It’s a great ad. And I’ll keep buying Gillette.
ReplyCare to make a contribution to the discussion based on your professional insight, rather than another weak generalisation?
For the record, I don’t like the ad. But I’m also not offended by it. Break out of your binary thinking. It’s not difficult
ReplyStop being so condescending while being anonymous, break out of your snowflake mentality. It’s not difficult
ReplyThat IS my professional opinion, M. The execution is a bit shonky, better director would have made it, but it’s a good start, worthwhile, has generated loads of publicity and I agree the hell out of it. Anyone offended by it has a thin skin and is EXACTLY the example of precarious masculinity the ad addresses. And it will sell.
ReplyThink I’ll just leave this here: https://www.mumbrella.asia/2019/01/i-am-surprised-it-took-gillette-this-long-to-evolve
ReplyIt’s not an “assumption” that “all of society is suffering from a severe bout of something we have decided to call ‘toxic masculinity’ which needs fixing”. It’s called living in a patriarchy. I say props to Gillette for joining the zeitgeist that is finally, finally, finally wagging fingers at how our current concept of masculinity hurts men and women.
And if you can’t handle an ad that makes you feel bad, put on a blindfold and join the cast of Bird Box. The point of advertising is precisely to make you feel that you’re “bad and somehow need fixing” and the thing that will fix you is INSERT BRAND/PRODUCT HERE. After a lifetime of being told I need to fix my hairy legs/fat thighs/dull hair/cooking skills in order to win the attraction of a man, I’m happy to see an advertisement that asks men to take another look at themselves.
ReplySo girls/women don’t engage in bullying or other toxic behavour?
And if they do, it’s the fault of men?
Okay.
And again, not liking the ad (or more precisely, seeing through the shallowness of the ad) does not equal being offended or feeling bad. It’s called critical analysis.
Plus:”The point of advertising is precisely to make you feel that you’re “bad and somehow need fixing” and the thing that will fix you is INSERT BRAND/PRODUCT HERE”
My word! For your clients’ sake, I hope you are not in any position of influence. .
ReplyYes, it is called critical analysis. Which I am now engaging in.
There’s a massive difference between individual behaviour and systemic tolerance (or intolerance) for certain behaviour from certain sexes. The fact that people such as yourself can’t see the difference is precisely why I applaud when brands shine the light on systems of oppression. In contrast, so many ad campaigns before this (Dove, UGH) have tried for progressive but just end up reinforcing the status quo.
And for your clients’ sake, I hope your office has a good copy editor.
ReplyYour argument boils down to you feeling hurt by an ad that was promoting good behaviour.
It says more about you than the ad.
ReplyWhat a tedious piece of patronising-talking-down-at-customers crap this ad is. Without realising it they have gone and changed the story from ‘the best a man can get’ to ‘the best a man can give’.
This is what happens when your objective goes from selling to ‘sparking a conversation’. Hopefully some sanity will return when they get slapped down as they are being in the comments section on their youtube channel.
ReplyI don’t think they are talking down to customers at all. First of all, I think you need to ask yourself why are you having an overt reaction to something that’s just saying “Hey, men, maybe we in a privileged position, can do better.” Anyone evolved would’ve seen the message for what it is and either agree or agree to disagree without calling a patronizing piece when it really isn’t.
And oh, those comments and ‘slap downs’? You think that will make an impact? Please. It’s just a small percentage of the community who just barely has a platform that allows them to be loud. The world will move onwards and upwards, you can have fun in the runt of society if you prefer. Its your freedom to do so.
Reply“Hey, men, maybe we in a privileged position, can do better.”
Are you sure undesirable behaviour stems only from a position of gender…I think it stems from privilege entirely. It just takes different forms depending on the sex of the person involved.
Have you seen how the women who run agencies behave? LOL.
ReplyI do not think this ad was shot by men. Not enough humour and subtle self-effacity. The strategy seems sound but the execution is some else’s interpretation of the strategy and the target. In the same way as women’s ads are ‘sensitively shot by women’ I think ads for men should follow something similar so we capture more nuance.
ReplySeems to me that moving ‘the best a man can get’ from having a trophy wife to having a sense of responsibility was a long time coming!
It’s good also to see Gillette structure that around values like confidence and competence, rather than ‘Men’s Health’ style anxieties and insecurities.
It didn’t look like an attack on men to me.
I’m just not sure why they settled on an execution that feels like a talking point for fourteen year-old boys in a social studies class, supplied by an underfunded community broadcaster.
It felt clunky and disjointed, and that awful voice over…haha.
ReplyDavid,
I disagree with you on the work, I am a loyal Gillette customer and I’m also raising a young teen boy, I don’t feel preached to by the ad, to me it actually creates hope that someone is addressing what it is to be a man right now and in the future. Having a teen scares the crap out of me due to the rubbish that is consumed online and some of the stuff that comes from his, and his friends, mouths causes real questions about how a young man becomes a man in an era when information is everywhere and facts, rights and wrong, and logic have gone out of the window.
One thing no-one seems to have mentioned is that everyone is focusing on the fact that “men need fixing” or other issues but not that it is also men who stop the fight, the bullying and the cat calling. It’s not painting all with one brush, it is far too easy to see that message.
As Terry Crews said, “men need to hold other men accountable” and that’s completely true.
One of the differences between Dove and the others who support women have is that Women are recognised as being historically societally disadvantaged. The ‘help’ is more easily accepted or welcomed. Gillette are trying to do this to the more advantaged and aggressive sex. Many of whom don’t think they need fixing and can’t see the societal challenges that exist from their ivory tower or expat existence (I’m also a white man of a certain age in an agency group (not Gillette’s btw) as an expat so I’m not throwing rocks here).
I think it is a brave campaign. One that will be trolled from inside and outside the industry, but I, for one, like it. I also like the charity tie up and so call me a sap, but even if this was done for the lobby, I say good effort.
Reply“I am a loyal Gillette customer and I’m also raising a young teen boy, I don’t feel preached to by the ad, to me it actually creates hope that someone is addressing what it is to be a man right now and in the future. Having a teen scares the crap out of me due to the rubbish that is consumed online and some of the stuff that comes from his, and his friends, mouths causes real questions about how a young man becomes a man in an era when information is everywhere and facts, rights and wrong, and logic have gone out of the window.”
Sad to say this Bud, but you are a shameful excuse for a parent. Are you hoping for Gillette to take over your responsibilities….are you busy on Insta? Disgraceful outlook on parenting.
Reply@Sad
ReplyAt no point do I see any evidence that FH is a ‘shameful excuse for a parent’.
It is your assumption that FH was a rotten parent until a shaving company brought this up.
FH made valid observations that I can identify.
Would I continue to buy Gillette? I don’t see any reason not to.
In fact, I may even add their shaving gel to the shopping list after this spot.
As will the women in my home for their feminine needs.
Gillette also makes shavers for women if anyone remembers too.
So what’s the marketing misstep here?
” it creates hope that someone is addressing what it is to be a man right now and in the future.”
Yes, because before Gillette came along, no-one was doing this.
I can’t stress how sad it is to read these words. Especially written by someone who is father to a teen boy. Imagine placing hope in your son’s future in the hands of a 2 min video from a global corporate.
My advice: turn off the video and spend more time with your son.
Good luck.
ReplyMore anti-male nonsense from the lefty snowflakes who seem to have taken over all forms of discourse lately. Caught an entire movie based on such a theme last weekend. Second Act with J Lo (omg can I call her that, hope Im not objectifying)
It’s littered with scenes trying to make males look like donkeys and sexist pigs. My fave: a male manager in the supermarket is brainstorming with an all female (gasp) crew of workers about what to name the revamped breakfast section. And he is made to say: “How about calling it “Morning Masticators”. All the women roll their eyes…and frankly so did I.
Meanwhile in the animal world, Evergreen Grass Inc. is running a social media film educating female praying mantises to be better, and not eat their male mates.
ReplyI prefer the Ultra Tune ads personally
ReplyThe only men offended by campaigns like this are the ones who have a problem. AND THAT’S A GOOD THING. This issue is uncomfortable—you have to feel the pinch to get the point. So this great for the world.
Is it great for Gillette? I’m not sure yet. It’s hard to grow an established brand by preaching to the choir; sometimes you need to stretch out of your comfort zone. But it remains to be seen whether the negativity Ritson refers to will extend from social media to the shelves.
Personally I doubt it. I look forward to watching this develop.
ReplySee I have a problem with this commonly circulated opinion: if people are offended, then that is a good thing.
How so? Surely the point of great advertising is to drive behavioural change. How is offending people going to encourage change? Surely it will merely intensify (justify even) their existing behaviour.
A smarter, more subtle and more inclusive approach could have worked far better. How many men were involved in this project and what kind of input did they have on the final video I wonder?
ReplyRemember the Australian Grim Reaper AIDS commercial? People took notice because they were offended. They were shocked and they were afraid. And it worked—it’s what drives behaviour change.
I know this because I’ve been through similar myself. I am a white straight male and I was totally unaware of my privileged position until I started dating a Singaporean Indian female. She called me on it.
It hurt. Conversations that challenge your long-held opinions and unconscious behaviours really sting. But now I am much more aware, and my behaviour has changed. It wouldn’t have happened unless I was offended.
ReplyHuge, huge difference between a public health campaign and a brand-led social change campaign.
As for the rest of your story – good luck.
ReplyThanks. It’s an ongoing and eye-opening experience. And I feel much better for it.
As for the campaigns, I agree there is some difference between a public health campaign, but not as much as you say. We are still trying to change behaviour no? Let’s look at some prominent social change campaigns:
Ariel ‘Share the Load’
Dove ‘Like a Girl’
They both involved an element of guilt the audience (inc. men) felt about their own behaviour. We were shamed.
To be effective you have to feel that sting. That moment where you acknowledge: “I said that”, “I did that” or “I’m like that”. You have to feel offended by your own behaviour, or you will not change.
ReplyDisagree.
Shaming may have worked for you personally but no evidence that shaming is an effective driver of behavioral change. See Clinton and the deplorables. Strong argument that shaming and criticism have the opposite effect: reinforcing bad behavior as a symbol of opposition.
The examples you give:
Reply– share the load – any data to show how this has changed behavior? Nice message, fits the brand, but what was the behavioral outcome – how many Indian men are now doing the washing?
– like a girl – most definitely did not come from shaming. Came from a message of power and aspiration. Which was why it worked. Unlike Gillette.
Seems like a smart evolution based on a solid core insight, even if the craft is shoddy. Women are, of course, the primary grocery shopper and with DTC brands eating up market share, a shake up was necessary for the brand perception.
Am sure the online outrage and Piers Morgan acting like a giant man-baby will roll through the winning case study video at Cannes next year, as will the Nike “backlash” (another equally well strategised move)
Would suggest those so mortally offended examine whether they are, in fact, the snowflakes.
ReplyWhat was the solid core insight? I am intrigued.
ReplyDear ad-veteran, thank you for proving why you are a veteran.
The best a vet can not get it.
ReplyMore ageism
When did the progressive left get so regressive?
ReplyBut no expert solution. More of the same is not an answer for a brand in a category that has rapidly changed in the last 5 years. David can you provide an alternative solution that isn’t drive more sales.
ReplyWonder how women feel about this ad from a brand which charges them a female premium for the same product in pink…
ReplyQuick sanity check….I think Mayo the Vet (!) knows what he is talking about. Not defending him but he has done a pretty good job here of dissecting this Gillette communication and giving it place in a world where the default for big brand ideas in the personal products category now seems to be solving social problems. He didn’t seem offended by anything other than the tonality of the content. He liked the strategy but showed how it seems to have gotten lost in translation. Its a good and well written piece not quite as good as Ritson’s piece (which was a bit more hubristic) but essentially they are saying the same thing. And nobody (not even the evergreen Mr Mayo) denies the need to change – that wasn’t the point. I do not think any of us should display social media tendencies referred to by Gillette in this specific ad, in this string either. Just saying.
ReplyIf you know what you are talking about, then you can put yourself in the shoes of who its targeting. #Justsaying
And don’t say your not defending someone, then defend them and then expect anyone to invest in your opinion with confidence.
ReplySorry I do not understand what you are trying to say here. I was just making a few points on the conversation that everyone was having. In a positive way.
ReplyBrands will only benefit from purpose when its a subject their products can actively dramatise. I don’t see the link between shaving and bullying, sexism or racism.
ReplyIf Gillette is genuine in its new manifesto then I’m looking forward to the upcoming ads in markets like China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia South Africa. Likewise when can we buy Gillette branded products that help stop bullying and sexism perpetrated by men. As someone who has experienced plenty of racism from other men down the years, I’ll be first in the queue so cant wait!
Else its just a cynical grab for cultural currency. Which explains my discomfort. Thats they key reason Pepsi were rightly lambasted for their ad last year.
Of course Gillette won’t do any of the above because this was simply a badly executed piece of opportunism trying to co opt into a virtuosos subject and its enraged so many of its loyal customer base, none of whom are the sexist neanderthals they so eagerly depict in their ad.
Yes a great message for feminism against a tiny minority of nasty men, but suicidal business marketing strategy.
The toxic masculinity meme going round is providing fertile ground for haters and misandrists to go mainstream with their general hatred of all things masculine. The gillette ad also provides a platform to say to young boys:
Reply“Your great grandfather, your grandfather, your uncle, your father were and will always be b*stards of the first order.”
“Never mind the fact they worked, fought and died for you. Forget that they worked like dogs to give you and your siblings a better life and better opportunities than they had. And ignore the fact that they’ve protected you and your family from the evils of the world outside, standing by your side and helping you become a better man than they are.”
In the invidious way of marketing, the gillette ad preys on the young minds of boys to denigrate them, to shame them and to belittle them. This will further increase boys’ and young men’s suicide rates (much higher than women or girls). It will further increase the bigotry and discrimination faced by boys and young men of all races. (who already have zero programs supporting them academically or career-wise). It will further increase the mental ills and depression faced by boys and men (with women receiving over 80% of all funding for mental illness in Western countries).
The hatred for men literally ‘steams’ off the ad.
Way to go gillette. Next time why don’t you just take the next logical step down the path of hatred and advocate for the removal of men from society.
Yes, they did great things. They also did bad things that needed to change.
These are the same generations that condoned segregation. That condoned women not voting. Then they realised it was wrong and changed their minds.
They changed with the times, as we all must do. If they are capable of that, we are too.
Reply@Milan
ReplyHow did ‘bad men’ suddenly equate to ‘all men’?
Did you miss the difference in the context and scenarios in the commercial?
Can the director get any MORE obvious?
All white men to be more exact
Taken from elsewhere
43 males exhibit bad behaviour- 42 white, 1 black
7 males exhibit good behaviour- 2 white, 5 black
Sledgehammer politics that alienates the very people it is trying to target (if that is indeed what the ad is trying to do, which I doubt). Have we learned nothing from DNC vs Trump? Well, at least we were spared appearances from Beyoncé and Taylor Swift.
ReplyI certainly didn’t miss the difference between white men and black men.
ReplyI did though miss the female bullies. Where they at?
Have your say