Gillette’s U-turn is an expensive lesson in humility
Despite what companies may think, they have no mandate to shame their consumers. Just look at Gillette, who after telling men how to behave, are coming back to consumers with their tails between their legs, writes Xavier Symons.
Rendezview
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rendezview. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Once upon a time companies had a clear purpose: to make profits for shareholders by selling stuff.
Today, more and more boardrooms are becoming hotbeds of social activism. Why? Are they bored with the grubby business of capitalism?
Take Gillette, the gigantic safety razor brand, now owned by Proctor & Gamble.
In January, Gillette sparked an online firestorm and boycott threats with a two-minute advertisement inspired by the #MeToo movement.
It challenged men to shave off their toxic masculinity and depicted scenes of boys bullying each other and men catcalling women before finally asking, “Is this the best a man can get?” — playing on its iconic tagline.
RELATED: Gillette backlash: An attack on all men
Mansplaining, sexual harassment, cyber-bullying, sexual assault, and fistfights all featured prominently. It never bothered to mention razors, the actual product it was attempting to sell, though.
In May, Gillette followed up with another ad featuring a father teaching his transgender son how to shave for the first time.
Rightly, the Gillette ads were slammed for attempting to vilify guys because they are guys. The first ad made it look as though the best men are childish thugs and the worst men are sexual predators.
The second ad alienated the vast majority of consumers. You might as well be trying to sell Chanel No. 5 to Victorian CFMEU boss John Setka, an example of toxic masculinity if there ever was one.
Now, it seems the company paid a hefty price for the move - $11.84 billion in fact, if reports of P&G’s writedown last month are to be believed.
Fortunately, following a massive backlash, Gillette has changed its marketing strategy.
Its new advertising series focuses on “local heroes”.
There’s an Australian firefighter, Ben Ziekenheiner, who describes his dangerous line of work to viewers.
“I’ve been a firefighter for 19 years,” he says. “People sometimes ask if it’s scary. It can be, but like anyone who has a job to do, you prepare — not just in terms of your equipment but also mentally and physically.”
The ad spruiks the brand’s SkinGuard shaving range, highlighting the issue of sensitive skin for men who shave every day — including firefighters, who are required to be clean-shaven as it enables a proper seal for their breathing mask.
The change in Gillette’s marketing strategy is a welcome one.
Razors are a male grooming accessory. Just because you sell a product that’s exclusively male doesn’t give you a free pass to lecture men about how they should act.
Yet, I fear that this is not an isolated trend.
RELATED: Gillette’s latest ad puts spotlight on local firefighter
Many companies seem unconcerned about the impact that their social moralising has on their own profitability. Or, more to the point, some corporations are weaponised by ideological CEOs to promote their favourite causes at the expense of their shareholders. One need only think of Rugby Australia’s ongoing clash with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce as evidence.
Corporations need to realise that they have no licence for promoting divisive social causes. They have no mandate to shame their consumers.
In the case of the culture wars over masculinity, we need to ask men what they want to be, rather than telling them what they should be. Companies can promote indisputably admirable masculine qualities such as service and courage. But there’s a fine line between this and pseudo-moralising about male aggression.
Instead of telling the rest of us how to behave, companies should remember that consumers aren’t stupid. They can tell the difference between virtue-signalling and virtue.
Xavier Symons is a research associate at the Institute for Ethics and Society at Notre Dame.