Gillette’s new ad was released on January 13, 2019; in the video, the cult manufacturer of skincare products has changed its 30-year slogan. Gillette has updated its old motto to “The best men can be.” This video shows the so-called male behavior that, according to the authors’ ideas in it, includes harassment, violence, and bullying. The main leitmotif of the ad is the fight against toxic masculinity. The video itself is an integral part of a new advertising and charity campaign, which might be called a battle against the old customs. The reaction to it was enchanting; it should be noted that many users are already saying that the video in the future may break the YouTube record for the number of dislikes. In such a situation, the word “criticize” in the framework of this reaction is not suitable as a wording. Because criticism, to put it mildly, does not necessarily make people who have been using a particular product for 30 years to abandon it.
The commercial begins with a list of negative behaviors often associated with men and a play on Gillette’s slogan, “The Best a Man Can Get.” It then shows some examples of problematic events, such as violence, sexual harassment, and objectification of women. It declares that they have been happening for too long and cannot be laughed off. In doing so, the commercial asserts that men either approved of these actions or dismissed them as inconsequential. This claim is repeated throughout the video and can be considered its central point and the issue that Gillette is seeking to address. However, while many of the examples used at this point in the video are real and warrant concern, the commercial’s interpretation of the topic fails to capture the mainstream narrative.
These scenes are followed by what may be the most memorable moment of the commercial and the reason for the stereotyping claims. Two children are fighting in a courtyard, and a long row of men, presumably fathers, stand in front of grills and declare that “boys will be boys.” Children will often play-fight, stopping before inflicting any harm, and the practice is beneficial and necessary. However, Gillette implies that the fathers are incompetent parents who do not stop children from abusing each other, thus promoting violence. This idea is reinforced at the end of the commercial, where a father stops the two, and the narrator states that today’s children will be tomorrow’s men.
The commercial then turns to discuss the #MeToo movement, marking it as a point of change where female victims were finally heard. It uses a variety of clips from television shows to demonstrate the shift in the narrative toward listening to female victims. In doing so, the commercial demonstrates that its authors assumed that these media views of the movement as a positive force were successfully mainstreamed. However, survey results that show more than half of every American demographic being at least as concerned about false allegations against men as harassment against women. Despite the positive coverage around #MeToo, public views around it are divided, likely because of high-profile cases that weakened the movement, such as that of Brett Kavanaugh.
The commercial ends with a series of demonstrations of behaviors that Gillette considers to be appropriate for men, which mostly involve stopping others from engaging in problematic behavior. Another well-known moment occurs here that shows the difference in interpretations between the designers of the advertisement and large portions of the public. A man sees an attractive woman pass by and tries to follow her, only to be stopped by a friend. In Gillette’s interpretation, he was likely going to trouble her, but he gives no outward sign of intending to do so. As such, it was as likely, or more so, that he would try to become acquainted with her or arrange a date, actions that are typically viewed as normal and unproblematic.
The video sparked a heated discussion on social media with the participation of conservative users and activists for men’s rights. The described approach to promote Gillette’s products angered feminists as well. Procter & Gamble, which owns brands of both men’s and women’s personal care products, has been accused of trying to manipulate public opinion to use a painful issue for profit. Feminists are outraged that the years of their struggle for women’s rights have turned into a piece of thoughtless advertising.
The reasons why this campaign resulted in the above issues – according to a number of publications – might be formulated as follows. First, inappropriate behavior may not be unique to men or boys. The idea of men as the only aggressors began to plague viewers from the very first frames of the ad. Second, the content of previous Gillette videos had opposite tendencies, so the sincerity of the message seems questionable. There are many photographs and old videos of Gillette explicitly exploiting female imagery to convey a message of masculinity. The same is characteristic of Procter & Gamble – a mother company of Gillette. For instance, in 2013, when P&G launched the “My Black is Beautiful” campaign, the company demonstrated a double standard due to several reasons. For example, products of its leading brands such as Olay were intended to lighten the skin and sold in several countries in South Africa. All of these mechanisms made Gillette’s ads look disingenuous because both men and women find it offensive when a brand with such a history of advertising starts emitting morality.
An essential question here is whether brands should address social issues in such a way or not. There is ample research showing that customers prefer brands that are passionate about social and political issues that hold the minds of a wide audience and are heavily debated by the public. According to Sprout Social (2018), 66% of consumers prefer companies that raise these issues, and more than half said they do not mind doing it on social media. It seems rational to mention that CSR theory also argues in favor of such an approach, and Gillette’s strategic change here seems proper.
However, customers also want brands to be honest and sincere. If these brands do not actually participate in any social transformations, but simply create the illusion of their involvement in this, then there is no reason to be loyal. It is apparent that #MeToo is not a movement that can be exploited for profit. Customers unmistakably identify companies that want to obtain incomes founding their policies on dishonesty. Companies should consider not only creating videos but also advertising on television. They need to truly empathize with customers whose feelings are a vital aspect to take into account. Firms have to learn to provide real help and not abuse the exploitation of social issues.
It might be supposed that the primary problem that occurred with – at first approximation – socially responsible ad is that Gillette got confused with advertising and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dimensions. Then, this change in the firm’s cultural paradigm is rather a characteristic of adaptation than of evolution – Gillette tries to realign the way it operates and adapt it the trends. For a third party such as consumers and other stakeholders, the core intention of a firm’s advertisement will always be of profitable character. Hence, even if Gillette was pursuing noble and societally important aims, for the public, they were blurred by the firm’s mercantile interest. The critical point here is that a company should be careful while lightening an acute social issue, as well as while switching from evolution to adaptation.
Gillette tried to say its word in the context of overcoming the problem of toxic masculinity, while the firm was an advocator of masculinity for the entire time of operating. It does mean that Gillette promoted the toxic one – in contrast, the company has never aspired to act in such a way. Nevertheless, the contradiction is quite visible and becomes more apparent for the public when a profit element is taken into account. The politically charged issue of gender equality, human rights, and inclusion is essential to address. However, such a language is one of “advocacy, not business. It is intentionally provocative”. Especially if this language is delivered in an advertising manner that Gillette implemented. Such a rapid switch to adaptation resulted in an undesirable consumers’ distrust. Finally, it turns out that the company is not to combine its significant and appropriate Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices with a commercial component. Otherwise, this policy will result in many problems that spoil reputation and – as a result – decrease profitability.