Is Gillette Overreacting or Earned Criticism for Its Ad Campaign?

To address the concerns surrounding Gillette's recent commercial, let's set the record straight. I have neither boycotted Gillette products nor impulsively bought more than needed. The ad had no effect on my purchasing pattern. The discussion now centers around the purpose and effectiveness of the ad.

Advertising Intent and Brand Credibility

Ads are designed to increase brand recall, helping potential customers make informed choices. Subconscious brand credibility is crucial for this. The Gillette ad, in my opinion, fails on this front.

Simply addressing a social issue, no matter its relevance, doesn't automatically bestow credibility. Credibility is earned through a sustained commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Otherwise, it comes across as insensitivity. The ad seems to be exploiting a social issue for marketing purposes, which, in my view, compromises its credibility.

Negative Stereotyping and Gender Sensitivity

Using stereotyping often backfires because it tars a hundred with the same brush in pursuit of one guilty individual. Advertisements that stereotype based on immutable traits, such as gender, face similar scrutiny. For example:

Ads encouraging black people to be more honest and less violent Ads urging women to be more logical and less emotional Ads promoting “pray the gay away” methods

These scenarios would elicit similar reactions. Instead of inciting improvement, they are perceived as misandrist feminist propaganda that denigrates people based on their biological characteristics. They are seen as offensive and inappropriate.

Criticism of the Ad and Brand Perception

Some might argue, “Why should I listen to a company about men’s behavior?” The backlash from Gillette's ad isn't just about their product's quality. It's about brand integrity. The ad raises questions:

Do they have a consistent standard for corporate responsibility and ethical oversight? What else might they try to push using similar tactics?

Gillette's recent sponsorship of the New England Patriots team, whose owner has controversial ties, and the quarterback's questionable image, don’t paint the brand as a shining example of progressive values. A man buying Gillette razors might be perceived as buying into more than just a product.

The criticism extends to lifestyle choices, suggesting that those who use Gillette may engage in behaviors deemed as “Beta” or submissive. The implication that leadership, assertiveness, and self-sufficiency come at a cost is a potent criticism of the ad's messaging.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the ad aimed to inspire a cultural shift, it failed to earn the credibility it sought. Instead, it stirred significant backlash, questioning the brand's values and marketing strategies. As consumers and critics, it's important to evaluate these campaigns based on their effectiveness and ethical integrity.

Is Gillette overreacting? Or is there a deeper critique of their influence and messaging? The debate continues.