Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Bannasidhe

Tell me how wrote: »

I think its possible we learn more from our peers than we do from our carers as a newborn or academic teachers in terms of behaviours.

"Children's Peer Relations and Social Competence: A Century of Progress," Gary Ladd, Arizona State University professor of psychology

My grandson informed me after he started his boys only school that he could no longer listen to his previously favourite music as it was 'girls' music.
I admit I was conflicted between telling him that music is music. It has no gender. You either like it or you don't or agreeing with him because I hated his favourite music and the chance to never have to listen to it again was sooo tempting.



Somehow I don't think he got that idea from his teacher.

Sweetemotion

Tell me how wrote: »

I think its possible we learn more from our peers than we do from our carers as a newborn or academic teachers in terms of behaviours.

"Children's Peer Relations and Social Competence: A Century of Progress," Gary Ladd, Arizona State University professor of psychology

That's very convenient isn't it. After all these peers having the same teaching it's nothing to do with us. It's just toxic masculinity.

Silentcorner

I apologise for the long post, but it is an interesting read, like I said before, this ad will be studied for years, I took this from marketing week, the feminist who did this, won the contract due to a gender equality program, this woman may well end up destroying more than a 100 year old, Multi Billion Dollar brand!

Mark Ritson: Gillette’s new ad will trash its sales and be the year’s worst marketing move
Gillette’s purpose-driven attempt to revitalise its slogan, ‘The best a man can get’, isn’t just a waste of ad budget but an expensive exercise in destroying its dominant market share.

By Mark Ritson 15 Jan 2019 10:36 am

We’re in brand purpose hell again this week. And the flames are burning higher and hotter than usual.

This week, Gillette decided that what men really need in 2019 is not just a clean shave and an aspirational brand image. Oh no. The brand, owned by Procter & Gamble (P&G), decided that what will keep men buying Gillette is being told they are not good enough and they need to improve.

First, a couple of important and obvious disclaimers. Toxic masculinity is something that should be addressed wherever it’s encountered. Men must take responsibility for their own behaviour and those of their peers in ensuring it does not continue to afflict society. Terry Crews, who makes a brief cameo in the ad, is a hero of mine not just for what he has put up with but the manner in which he has responded to it. He is the definition of masculinity in my opinion and I stand with him and all those intent on ensuring Me Too has an enduring impact.

Second, I do not think this is the worst bit of the purpose **** we’ve been exposed to over the past few years. Unlike Heineken trying to solve all society’s ills by asking people to ‘Open Your World’ or Starbucks claiming its mission is to ‘inspire and nurture the human spirit’, you can see what Gillette’s marketing team were thinking. It’s mistaken thinking. But there is an almost logical line running through the mistake that suggest this is an enormous tactical failure rather than a mistake born of strategy.

READ MORE: Stop propping up brand purpose with contrived data and hypocrisy

In fact, if anything, the strategy part makes sense. This is classic brand revitalisation territory. Gillette’s 30-year-old tagline, ‘Gillette, the best a man can get’, is one of the most famous and impactful slogans of recent history. But as with all things it can get old and dusty over time.

When the slogan debuted, the best a man could apparently get was a hot wife, a sports victory and (this is true) a career as a space shuttle pilot. Such were the dreams of the ’80s. Thankfully, much has changed. The retention of the slogan deserves plaudits. And so too does the attempt to link it with a different, more contemporary vision of masculinity.

This is similar to what Nike and its award-winning Colin Kaepernick ‘Dream Crazy’ campaign did for its ‘Just Do It’ tagline. Gillette is attempting to take an ancient and highly distinctive slogan and revitalise it for a new era. When you pull this off, you achieve a quintuple branding whammy of retaining a billion-dollar asset (the slogan), shedding all its ancient baggage, dressing it in new cultural clothes befitting 2019, attracting a new generation of customers and generating a pile of on-brand publicity to boot.

But the difference between Nike and Gillette is as glaring as that between night and day. Nike used the authenticity of Kaepernick, the pathos in his voice and the positivity of his message to inspire customers with an aspirational message that attracted them and then propelled them to purchase. Gillette’s ad feels like a tedious, politically correct public health video – the kind of film we were forced to watch in school about road safety before they invented the internet. Never mind making me hate Gillette, it makes me feel bad about pretty much everything.

READ MORE: Thomas Barta – The first rule of brand purpose is do no harm

This could have been a win for Gillette. A less heavy hand. A less preachy tone. A more inspirational message that real men, the kind who use Gillette, behave better and stand for change.

Feel-bad message
Gillette opted to use Kim Gehrig, one of a new generation of directors showcased by the Free the Bid campaign, which attempts to hire more female directors into advertising. Again, with such paltry female representation across creative departments, Free the Bid is a noble and important venture. But Gehrig stumbles badly here.

Rather than a work of inspiration and aspiration she delivers a short film that feels vindictive and accusatory. We are not being shown the better path, we are being told we are all on the wrong one and must change course immediately. Men are to blame. You, yes you. It’s a poor way to sell razors. Hell, it’s a poor way to sell anything.

And the proof of that poverty is in the social media pudding. Since the ad was posted yesterday (14 January) on Gillette’s YouTube channel it has received more than two million views. Thus far the like to dislike ratio is running 10 to one against the campaign. More worryingly, the sheer number of dislikes – one in every 10 people who have seen the ad went to the trouble of clicking the thumbs-down button at the time of writing – suggests a vehement dislike unusual for such a big brand with this kind of major campaign.

There is a special place in marketing hell for companies that invest money into things that ultimately make their situation much worse.

I’ve never seen that kind of negative engagement before. “It’s crucial to make the customer feel bad from the outset and then throughout the ad if you intend to sell to them effectively,” as David Ogilvy never wrote.

Despite becoming such a talking point, Kaepernick’s Nike ad enjoyed exactly the opposite social media response with its like to dislike ratio running 10 to one in its favour. And despite its enormous cultural impact, divisive message and four months of air time, Nike’s campaign has only managed to generate a 10th of the dislikes on YouTube that Gillette has achieved in just 24 hours. Trouble.

The qualitative comments below the ad on YouTube should make for salutary reading for Gillette too. If the team are able to get off their high horse and listen to their target customers for a few seconds they will quickly appreciate that they have a branding crisis on their hands, all of their own making.

“Harry’s razors are cheaper and available at Walmart for the same or a better quality shave…keep politics out of our grooming habits,” was one plaintive response. “Not buying any more. A company making billions from male grooming products trying to shame men for being… men?” was another well-liked retort.

READ MORE: Meet Harry’s, the shaving startup taking on Gillette

Most people who proclaim they will never buy a brand on social media soon forget their digital sentiment, return to their low involvement heuristic purchases and all is forgotten. But these comments also provide a bellwether for just how badly Gillette has misjudged its campaign and its customers. Scrolling through the bile from Gillette’s proclaimed former customers this week must surely strike a chord of horror among Gillette’s branding team.

A suicidal move
And those really are Gillette’s customers commenting on YouTube by the way. Again in contrast to Nike, Gillette still has the dominant share of the shaving market. Sure, Dollar Shave Club has made some nice headlines in recent years but Gillette still enjoys, or rather did enjoy until this week, a 50% market share in America and even more in the UK.

Nike knew it would anger some customers with its Kaepernick ad but it also knew these soon-to-be-enraged customers were the ones buying less sportswear, looking much worse in it and possessing far more price sensitivity than the segment it targeted with the ad.

And Nike had nowhere near a 50% share of any of the categories it competed in. From t-shirts to jogging bottoms to running shoes, there was much more to be gained than lost from its risky Kaepernick ad. Gillette, conversely, was sailing a big 50% boat and suddenly decided to rock it, badly. “All you had to do was be quiet and sell razors. RIP Gillette,” as one YouTube comment put it yesterday.

Of course, that’s the one thing you won’t see much of in Gillette’s new ad: razors. Among all the sanctimonious hectoring and evil masculinity on display in the ad there is very little room for any reference to shaving or Gillette. Nike’s campaign was not just aspirational, it actually showed Nike products in action throughout the two-minute spot.

That initial skateboarder that opens the ad, the refugee playing for Canada’s national football team, the cheerleader who became a linebacker, the best basketball player in the world – they were all shown engaged in sport and, remarkably, all wearing Nike while doing it. Imagine!


Gillette has plenty of tearful mothers, bullies, disillusioned teens, obnoxious executives and sexist bozos at parties. But with the exception of the retro clip of the original ’80s ad and a half-second at the end of the spot, there are no razors and no mentions of Gillette. Sure, we have lots of men contemplating the error of their ways – presumably in a bathroom mirror. But none pick up a razor and no mention of Gillette is made.

Instead, viewers are directed at the end to Gillette’s website where they can learn more about the cause and revel in the discovery that Gillette, which last year generated in excess of $6bn in sales, will donate $1m to non-profit organisations intent on improving men this year. Wow.

There are two ways to measure the toll that this dreadful ad will take. The first is the simple opportunity cost of taking Gillette’s American advertising budget and blowing much of it on this purpose-driven piffle at the expense of something more positive, persuasive and actually featuring the product and the brand itself. Usually this opportunity cost is measured in the millions of dollars, but that is usually the end of it.

But in Gillette’s case there is a bigger price to pay. There is a special place in marketing hell for companies that not only waste their marketing budgets but actually invest that money into things that ultimately make their situation much worse. That’s going to be the cost of this foray into brand purpose for Gillette.

It has spent its own money to make its still excellent commercial situation indelibly less positive at a time when it can ill afford the misstep, given the many alternatives vying for its sales. And for that we should stand back and appreciate what might turn out to be the worst marketing move of the whole year.

Dyr

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm guessing it was about 30 seconds before they posted something you disagreed with.

Guess again I havent seen anything vaguely funny from WW in a fair few years, the poor bastard is just rehashing the same templates over and over

gozunda

For anyone who would like to see a nice range of individual toxic types of behaviour involving some men women and even children - the recent footage in New Zealand is way better than the Gillette advert for sure

professore

The 6 billion dollar question - regardless what you thought of the ad, would it make you buy razors? For me it's a no.

Many of the female commentators on here suggested that advertising aimed at women is designed to make them feel bad about themselves so they will buy stuff. I don't think that works with men. It certainly doesn't work with me. I want an ad to make me feel good. Like the one where the guy keeps the pig. Gets me every time.

A few tweaks to the tone of the ad showing men doing good stuff for women and society in general and it would have been a rip roaring success - there are NO ads out there like that for men. They all show one dimensional sporting celebrities devoid of character, and some of them wouldn't have the best track record with women.

As it stands it comes across as men really are **** and portrays women as ultra sensitive snowflakes. Most of us are really trying to make the world a better place, and Gillette ****s all over us.

One thing I learned very young is that as a male you get virtually no encouragement from anyone. Plenty of people will put you down. You have to do it for yourself. There are exceptions like the spoilt brat but most guys I know were raised like that. It's probably different now.

So a little bit of encouragement would go a long way in advertising. Women are told how great and wonderful they are 24/7 in the media.

Tell me how

professore wrote: »

As it stands it comes across as men really are **** and portrays women as ultra sensitive snowflakes. Most of us are really trying to make the world a better place, and Gillette ****s all over us.

I don't see how it portrays women in this way.
It's about men reacting where they can. Women play a very small focus in the ad.

Also, I think Gillette's focus was to create awareness of their name moreso than getting people buying blades immediately.

Saw someone say on Twitter that given women do the purchases in a lot of houses maybe some guys will end up using Gillette without having thought about it.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't see how it portrays women in this way.
It's about men reacting where they can. Women play a very small focus in the ad.

Also, I think Gillette's focus was to create awareness of their name moreso than getting people buying blades immediately.

Saw someone say on Twitter that given women do the purchases in a lot of houses maybe some guys will end up using Gillette without having thought about it.

Sir...you really aren't getting this, they are getting hammered, by their own users.

This woman has done for Gender Diversity what Harvey Weinstein has done for meetoo.

professore

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't see how it portrays women in this way.
It's about men reacting where they can. Women play a very small focus in the ad.

Also, I think Gillette's focus was to create awareness of their name moreso than getting people buying blades immediately.

Saw someone say on Twitter that given women do the purchases in a lot of houses maybe some guys will end up using Gillette without having thought about it.

The scene where the guy says "smile sweetie" which is kinda appropriate because he has a camera and she has resting bitch face. And the other guy being stopped going to talk to a woman. But yeah I agree otherwise.

Tell me how

professore wrote: »

The scene where the guy says "smile sweetie" which is kinda appropriate because he has a camera and she has resting bitch face. And the other guy being stopped going to talk to a woman. But yeah I agree otherwise.

Blue bolded part. Yeah, she really was a bitch wasn't she. I mean, any man could tell that just by looking at her.
Red bolded part. This woman wasn't portrayed in any way other than being there.

You didn't really point out how they were portrayed as being ultra sensitive snowflakes though.

professore

Tell me how wrote: »

Blue bolded part. Yeah, she really was a bitch wasn't she. I mean, any man could tell that just by looking at her.
Red bolded part. This woman wasn't portrayed in any way other than being there.

You didn't really point out how they were portrayed as being ultra sensitive snowflakes though.

Well it implies a woman can't even take being told hello to in the street.

Tell me how

professore wrote: »

Well it implies a woman can't even take being told hello to in the street.

Come on now, you know what it implies.

I do think that that was the weakest point in the ad. That guy could have been as decent as anyone and interested in making a connection. It didn't show him misbehaving as such and it could have done so without being accused of making something up.

Amalgam

(may cause offense/distress, *you* have to press play before you get offended..)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4goq2om-U

Ficheall

Gonna start using the term "toxic masculinity" instead of "flatulence", I think.

hatrickpatrick

Tell me how wrote: »

Come on now, you know what it implies.

I do think that that was the weakest point in the ad. That guy could have been as decent as anyone and interested in making a connection. It didn't show him misbehaving as such and it could have done so without being accused of making something up.

On Reddit's feminism forum, they were talking about how most women just want to go about their day without being approached by any strangers. I queried where people felt it would be appropriate to introduce one's self and chat someone up, to which I received a bunch of downvotes and absolutely no replies. But I have seen feminists complain about being approached in bars and nightclubs as well - just for the fact of being approached when they just wanted to have a drink with their friends, not for any actual offence in what was said or anything like that. So those explicitly social venues are off the table for approaches being acceptable as well, then - which begs the question, where is it ok to explicitly attempt to meet people? On the internet only? Is that what we're trying to "achieve"?

It seems to me that the message is "approaching a stranger at all is usually not ok", which logically follows to "people should only meet sexual partners through mutual friends or social media". Which is just bizarre.

A lot of feminist thought around harassment and telling men to talk less or be quieter or whatever, strikes me as actually being more of a "treat everyone you meet as if they're probably an introvert unless told otherwise". Extroverts thrive on and crave social interaction with people, acquaintances and strangers alike. To an extrovert, the idea of walking around in some kind of bubble in which you don't interact with anyone who isn't on some pre-approved list is not only weird, but profoundly depressing and loneliness-inducing.

Maybe people should wear badges, bracelets or clothing which designates whether one is an introvert or extrovert, and therefore whether one is open to social interaction with strangers or is completely repulsed by it? The idea of assuming the latter as the default and only meeting people either in pre-existing friend groups or through apps like Tinder conjures, at least for me, the image of a very bleak and depressing world to live in.

I met my first proper girlfriend in The Village in Dublin (Now called Opium, on Wexford Street) when she sat next to me at a lock in and asked if she could use me as a pillow because she needed to KO for a few minutes and I was (allegedly) kinda cute. In the kind of world these "all stranger approaches are harassment" types want to create, she'd be guilty of doing something wrong in that scenario and consequently we'd never have even met, unless someone who knew both of us introduced us or something.

Given that I have personally heard women complaining that guys in my generation are too shy about hitting on women and they still feel awkward making the first move for one reason or another, it seems that most women don't want to live in a world in which lads believe that strangers are just off limits for chatting up, full stop. So that particular concept doesn't seem to have any mainstream backing at all.

When it comes to sexual harassment, I always feel that the meaning of the word "harassment" is being lost. Harassment by definition has to happen more than once - one lousy pickup attempt or a chat up which doesn't interest a person cannot by definition be "harassment" unless it continues after being rebuffed. So I for one totally object to that aspect of the ad.

There's only one type of unsolicited social interaction in public which I find annoying personally, and that's the "hey, can I have your bank account details for charity" clipboard folks you get around Grafton St sometimes. Even the religious preachy types are a bit of craic if you have time to stop for a chat, even if you have no intention of joining their religion.

Wolf whistling and catcalling I'd describe as "heckling" in that those who do them generally don't actually expect a reciprocal social interaction and are just doing it to be a pain in the hole, same as when junkies or scumbags shout "dafuq are yewwwwwww lookin' a'?" - but saying hello to a person or telling them you like something about them with the intention of signalling attraction? That's how the human mating dance works. To try and drive that out of us is to drain some of the colour away from everyday life and leave the world feeling a bleaker and less warm place to live.

Sam Quentin

I think the add should show mens emotional side rather than our 'guilty' side/feelings...
It should show a woman sneakely using the razor on her legs when she thinks the man is sleeping.. but he wakes up reaises his favourite best razor is missing, . then shows him sitting on the edge of the bed with his head in his hands crying.... until he hears noise coming from the ensuite and noticed the door is half ajar, as he peeps in he sees his other half/her indoors/the moth watevs shaving her hairy legs..... So he kicks the door in punches her lights out and grabs the razor, holding it up with both his hands he laughs out loud in an evil hysterical happy manner.
THE END.

Manic Moran

Wibbs wrote: »

The bigger concern is that larger agencies like the WHO and national psychiatric boards are stating "toxic masculinity" is akin to an "illness". Apparently being stoic, "overly" self reliant, competitive, dominant are all bad for you and lead to serious mental illnesses like depression all the way up to suicide.

I saw that report and was left confused. It says that there are times where stoicism and a tough demeanor are good things, such as for first responders or on the battlefield. Although I am pleased that my stoicism as a soldier is officially sanctioned by the APA as an exception to this concept of such traits bein harmful it does leave me wondering if the APA are suggesting that we identify warrior classes or those likely to be police or firemen, and raise them differently from those we wish to be less stoic.

Which then begs the question how the non-stoic folks are supposed to act in time of crisis, natural or manmade disaster, or if we suddenly restart the draft for another war...

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I met my first proper girlfriend in The Village in Dublin (Now called Opium, on Wexford Street) when she sat next to me at a lock in and asked if she could use me as a pillow because she needed to KO for a few minutes and I was (allegedly) kinda cute. In the kind of world these "all stranger approaches are harassment" types want to create, she'd be guilty of doing something wrong in that scenario and consequently we'd never have even met, unless someone who knew both of us introduced us or something.

No she wouldn't. She spoke to you and told you what she was at and asked if she could use you as a pillow.

I know your point on how are men supposed to know if they can't approach a girl. And I think that is the wrong message (and wasn't dealt with that well in the ad).

It seems though many women have experience of guys not taking a polite no for an answer and so the message has got out of hand.

I was in Lazarote before Christmas and was driving behind a car along the prom area in Puerto Del Carmen. 3 times it slowed down and the driver said something to girls walking on the footpath. One of them spoke aggressively towards the guy so I presume whatever he said wasn't welcome (obviously I don't know for sure).

The message in the video is that that type of seeking to connect is not OK, but as I said, I don't think it was communicated well.
I agree, women do not want a world where no one tries to talk to them.

An_Toirpin

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You are misrepresenting me.

Not at all - hence the direct request for clarification! I can only reply to what you said. Not what I imagine you said. A list of traits was given and you said that women do not aspire to them in the same way. I was responding to that with a request for clarification. Nothing misrepresenting about that at all!

Now admittedly "in the same way" is a massively nebulous qualifier that can mean quite a many things. That was the focus of my understanding I should request clarification specifically so as _not_ to misrepresent you.

I just do not see the "data" you are claiming there is lots of. The traits remain a list of traits I think people of any gender can and should aspire to and this separation of them into being masculine or feminine traits generally appears to be a nonsense.

valoren

Went to Tesco last night. Specifically for razors. Normally I just absentmindedly grab the Mach 3.
After following this thread, I actually took time and looked at what else was available and at the prices.

Saw 3 Wilkinson Sword aloe vera coated 5 blades for half price. €3.50 per pack. Even at full price they are cheaper than the Mach 3.
And the shave is better too.

HappyAsLarE

valoren wrote: »

Went to Tesco last night. Specifically for razors. Normally I just absentmindedly grab the Mach 3.
After following this thread, I actually took time and looked at what else was available and at the prices.

Saw 3 Wilkinson Sword aloe vera coated 5 blades for half price. €3.50 per pack. Even at full price they are cheaper than the Mach 3.
And the shave is better too.

Won’t touch Gillette razors again myself. They should be ashamed.

lbc2019

Bannasidhe wrote: »

lbc2019 wrote: »

I think you should set his ban aside... :cool:

Dammit.
My just repaired laptop is now covered in nose ejected coffee. :mad:

BANNAED.



:D

Think that was my finest post on boards lolz

Muckka

lbc2019 wrote: »

Think that was my finest post on boards lolz

Well I'm delighted I was able to bring about your best post on board's.

Nothing wrong with a bit of agro now and again, it's all part of toxic masculinity

silverharp

There was one clip in the advert where the dad panics because two young boys are play fighting and runs over to break them up, that actually is a good example where boys should be boys. Helicopter parenting and killing their assertive behaviour will do more damage than any perceived “toxicity” because of a bit of rough and tumble. This is part of the attitudes in education etc to pathogolise boy’s behaviour as if there is something wrong with them

jimgoose

I don't really give a monkey's about that ad, but it served as the kick up the hole I needed to look at much better value shaving products from the likes of Wilkinson Sword. So, well-hoofed Gillette Morkeshing peeps. #backfire :D:D

Seanachai

silverharp wrote: »

There was one clip in the advert where the dad panics because two young boys are play fighting and runs over to break them up, that actually is a good example where boys should be boys. Helicopter parenting and killing their assertive behaviour will do more damage than any perceived “toxicity” because of a bit of rough and tumble. This is part of the attitudes in education etc to pathogolise boy’s behaviour as if there is something wrong with them

The father should have been shouting, 'Take the back Charlie' and then welling up with tears in his eyes when Charlie takes out his opponent with a rear naked choke. The father of the other kid then consoles him and tells him that you can't always win, but that he put up a good fight.

El_Duderino 09

Muckka wrote: »

Exactly because I just don't want to be in a relationship and I have a great time, fishing, hunting, hillwalking etc

If a Man put's pussy in front of himself, he's seriously fcked up.

I see you identify with me, thanks

Imagine reducing the entire enterprise of building a relationship, forming a family unit and supporting each other, to "pussy".

I don't use the term toxic masculinity because I don't know what it means. But the attitude shown above is clearly indicative of something that's not great.

Tell me how

silverharp wrote: »

There was one clip in the advert where the dad panics because two young boys are play fighting and runs over to break them up, that actually is a good example where boys should be boys. Helicopter parenting and killing their assertive behaviour will do more damage than any perceived “toxicity” because of a bit of rough and tumble. This is part of the attitudes in education etc to pathogolise boy’s behaviour as if there is something wrong with them

Well, full marks for taking everything literally.

The message is that when fighting is aggressive, it is right to stop it. Is that a wrong message?

The guy being bullied on the street wasn't bleeding or lying on the ground either, does that mean it wasn't right to intervene?

Muckka

Oh how I remember those days, myself and someone else hammering the **** out of each other.
Got a few beatings and I probably deserved it, but I loved a good scrap.

It's considered uncivilised nowadays.

Dad would be of the sort of guy who'd say did ye shake hands afterwards....

I'd say yes, good man he'd say...

Boy's could become the best of friends after beating the living lard out of one another.

Women on the other hand would hold onto a resentment forever....

Renegade Mechanic

Well the time is definitely ripe for another company to make a "oh, look, we actually DON'T hate men" advert and rake in a few customers of their own. Probably what I'd do..