Gillette — The Best Men Can Be — One of the worst Marketing Campaigns in recent history?
Gillette’s “The Best Men Can Be” campaign was received as one of the worst marketing initiatives on launch. However, in hindsight, was it as bad as people thought?
By Pranay Abraham
The “Best Men Can Be” corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaign launched in January of 2019, on the back of the trending #Metoo. It marked the 30th anniversary of Gillette’s classic ‘The Best a Man Can Get’ campaign which debuted during the 1983 Super Bowl.
It was Gillette’s attempt at changing people’s perceptions by tackling the issue at hand and joining the discussion by focusing on the toxic behavior of men. Its message was simple: Urging men to be better.
The ad takes stock of harmful behaviors that have been coded as “Masculine.” It references bullying, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and the sexual-misconduct allegations that started in 2017 with Harvey Weinstein. It also challenges the notion that “boys will be boys,” and concedes that its past ads often told a one-note story about masculinity.
On launch, Gary Coombe, president of P&G Global Grooming, said:
“By holding each other accountable, eliminating excuses for bad behavior, and supporting a new generation working toward their personal ‘best,’ we can help create positive change that will matter for years to come.”
So… How Did It Do?
Considering Gillette’s goal was to spark a conversation, I would say they were very successful. But when looking beyond their goals and seeing the impact the campaign had on the brand, the answer is not as clear cut.
The ad sparked boycotts from men around the world while also receiving plaudits from women for asking men to assess their impact on society. It highlighted the expression ‘boys will be boys’ and challenged men to be their best in light of the #MeToo controversies.
The advert drew both praise and criticism online, with some stating that the release of the campaign was extremely timely considering the increasing prevalence of conversations about toxic masculinity.
Many felt like Gillette were simply trying to capitalize on the trending and controversial #Metoo campaign.
However, that’s not the case, it was not just an attempt to throw their hat into the conversation, it was much more that. Gillette was betting on the success of this campaign, it debuted on the 30th anniversary of its most iconic ad campaign and was positioned to make a powerful statement that would resonate with audiences and change its image for years to come. In other words, they were banking on this being the new slogan for Gillette.
Unfortunately, it was too big a step in a different direction, people (men in particular) were confused by the effort and in a time where men were coming a lot of scrutiny, the ad felt like a betrayal. Men around the world were outraged and boycotted the brand immediately. Men didn’t share the company’s sentiment about its role in influencing culture, or the way it went about it.
On YouTube, where the video has been viewed nearly 30 million times, over one and a half million people have disliked the video, an amount more than double the number who have liked it.
Qualitatively, many of the campaign’s critics suggest that Gillette goes too far and unfairly stereotypes the character of men. One of the arguments critics are making is that the brand’s short film ‘not-so-subtly’ implies that most men are engaging in bad behavior while only “very few” are stepping up to fight it.
And that’s where I believe its possible to suggest that Gillette’s campaign was not the best that it could get: It took on the virtually impossible task of trying to hold its primary customer base — men — “accountable” for negative behavior that many if not most would say they don’t engage in or condone in the first place.
The Two Sides Of The Story
The Ad makes a powerful statement and takes a strong stance on an issue that was and still is very relevant. It has all the ingredients to make a brilliantly successful campaign, however, that is not the case. Perhaps the statement was too wrong and more importantly, it came out of nowehere. Gillette is not a brand that has tackled any such issues in the past. And unlike AXE which has come under significant pressure for its ads and its toxic depiction of sex. Gillette never had such an image. So it caused people to ask the simple question: WHY?
Why would the brand take a stance that alienates and unfairly criticizes its primary target audience?
That said, the message resonated strongly with women. They rallied behind the cause and came to support the brand in this effort. This is important because many simply disregarded to consider the economic power of women.
According to Sarah Ashman, Global Chief Executive at Wolff Olins, “In the States alone, more than half of the population is female. Women are responsible for more than $39tn, meaning they control 30% of the world’s wealth and the majority of its shopping trollies.”
In Short
Gillette were banking on the fact that the supporters would outweigh the boycotters and that the economic power of women would ultimately benefit them in the long run. However what they failed to consider was how strongly the message resonated with their brand image at the time. It was simply too far from anything created or associated with Gillette, which confused and angered its primary target audience. Doing so has hurt them and seen them fall behind its key competitors after years of sustained dominance in the market.
