This Good Max campaign from Venezuela seeks to scare men into shaving regularly by claiming beards can increase the threats associated with COVID-19. Hey, it’s only a matter of time before Gillette cuts into the conversation—probably producing branded coronavirus masks.
Advertising Age reported on Procter & Gamble announcing its best quarterly and fiscal-year sales growth in a decade. However, the financial gains were cut by the following admission:
Despite the strong top-line—up 5 percent organically for the full year—P&G recorded a net loss of $2.12 per share, due largely to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of the value of the Gillette shave business. P&G said that move reflected—in order of impact—currency devaluations, a long-term trend toward men shaving less in developed countries, and increased price-focused competition over the 14 years since P&G acquired the business in a $57 billion deal.
Or maybe men in developed countries simply aren’t buying the bullshit of divertisements that ultimately insult them. Don’t look for The Look to turn things around, Marc Pritchard.
The latest installment in the Digiday confessions series spotlighted a “minority marketer” confessing over client-side cultural cluelessness. Wouldn’t be surprised if the anonymous complainer works at Procter & Gamble, HP, Verizon, Gillette, NIVEA, Honey Maid, Unilever or Papa John’s.
‘People are scared to speak up’: Confessions of a minority marketer
By Seb Joseph
Being an ethnic minority at a predominantly white workplace creates its own kind of stress.
In our latest Confessions, in which we exchange anonymity for honesty, a minority marketing professional discussed how they saw non-white colleagues favor white staff and limit people of their own color as a way to get ahead in their careers.
Excerpts lightly edited for clarity and flow.
How does the advertising industry compare to others you’ve worked in when it comes to racial prejudice and unconscious bias toward ethnic minorities?
In all my roles, I have always noticed a degree of prejudice and bias, but I did not expect it in a not-for-profit organization. The advertiser I worked at put across this image of being inclusive, yet some of the staff they hired didn’t hold those values. You could clearly see minority members of staff being talked down to and ignored in meetings. There was a feeling of superiority from some of the white team members, even new grads.
What made you feel like you didn’t fit in?
Being excluded from meetings, having my suggestions ignored and job duties like building influencer partnerships — core to my role — were allocated to other white members of the team who had less experience. I wasn’t the only one who noticed this as other non-white members were overlooked for promotions while recent grads came in and had their development fast-tracked through the marketing team.
Has this impacted your own progression?
My progression was non-existent and part of the problem. Sometimes it’s better to leave than constantly butt heads with clueless people.
How did you and other non-white colleagues react to that behavior?
Sometimes people make it through the door and forget where they came from. Too many people are accepting of things that aren’t right so long as they don’t have to get involved, which is sad. There is a nervousness about speaking up because they could be labeled as troublesome and consequently, limit their own progression. There’s this misconception that if you behave a certain way, then you’ll be accepted. What’s sad is you have to be a certain way and be cool with opinionated cliques when you’re from a minority background, which isn’t for everyone as people are all brought up differently.
Give an example.
I’ve seen marketers who are from ethnic minorities ignore suggestions from colleagues who look like themselves only to accept the same suggestions from white members of staff. It’s also common for minorities to be ignored or even told to be quiet. Unacceptable really. People are scared to speak up because they feel they will be labeled as playing the race card but why should people be made to feel like this?
Did you speak up when those instances happened?
I spoke up about it while I was at the charity, but it all got brushed under the carpet. And then you have a few meetings where they ensure you speak, but after a while, it goes back to normal. It’s a token gesture. The workspace should be somewhere that’s inclusive and where people can voice their opinions without feeling threatened, isolated or bullied. I’ve seen it really affect people and have a negative effect on their mental health because they were ostracized.
Do internal diversity groups help or hinder the problem?
Groups like that need full support right from the top of a business. In this organization, the so-called diversity group had one annual meeting and guess what: The founding members were all white with an agenda to push sexual equality. While this is also very important, it left race nowhere to be seen. If you want diversity and equality, you have to support all the issues that people are faced with.
How did the HR team react when you raised the issue with them?
HR teams can be the make or break of an organization. But things are swept under the carpet and not always taken seriously enough. In cases where I spoke to HR, they weren’t qualified or properly equipped to handle my issues or complaints. You end up with things being “investigated” but with no action being taken because they can’t substantiate.
Advertising Age published a peculiar perspective from Emily Viola, Managing Director, Cultural Insights and Brand Strategy, at SS+K. Praising brands for being cultural leaders versus cultural followers, Viola gushed:
Wow, that’s a stretch—with a touch of delusional ignorance. Gillette, Procter & Gamble and White advertising agency Grey should not be compared with the ACLU, especially when their exclusive hiring practices alone warrant criticism and condemnation from the American Civil Liberties Union.
What’s more, Gillette, P&G and Grey are not close to being cultural leaders; rather, they are jumping on the bandwagons of existing cultural movements. It’s hypocrisy and political patronization of the highest order. Indeed, for these entities to embrace inclusivity is no different than their eagerness to create tie-ins with the latest Hollywood blockbuster or celebrity-of-the-hour. And given their historical and perpetual exclusivity, the communications they create are patently offensive—beyond the offense such work typically generates.
Oh, and Viola is hardly in a position to pontificate on inclusion and diversity, considering that the people at her place of employment—depicted above—appear to make up a stereotypical White advertising agency.Gillette’s ad with a dad teaching his transgender son how to shave has infiltrated mainstream news and social media. It’s a great example of a brand riding a cultural wave. In this case, Gillette is leaning into a new consumer value, ‘inclusive is the new exclusive’, a cultural shift that describes the phenomenon of companies gaining social cred for going beyond being welcoming and diverse and embracing a level of inclusivity that was once only the terrain of groups like the ACLU.
How to be a cultural leader instead of a cultural follower
Bold brands like Gillette and H&M are trying to tap more into shared consumer values than shared consumer experiences
By Emily Viola
Gillette’s ad with a dad teaching his transgender son how to shave has infiltrated mainstream news and social media. It’s a great example of a brand riding a cultural wave. In this case, Gillette is leaning into a new consumer value, “inclusive is the new exclusive”, a cultural shift that describes the phenomenon of companies gaining social cred for going beyond being welcoming and diverse and embracing a level of inclusivity that was once only the terrain of groups like the ACLU.
Gillette is still catering to the masses—or at least the younger generations who are aging into shaving. But they are doing it in a way that taps more into shared consumer values than shared consumer experiences. It’s a tricky line to navigate, but when done well, can yield huge payoffs. However, it requires a different kind of insight: cultural insight.
Consumer culture as a leading indicator
Cultural insight relies not on what a single consumer sees, feels or experiences, but upon examining the various ways that entire groups of people are changing, thinking, moving, voting, dreaming and even praying. We call these shifts “social forces” and they can be tracked, monitored and tapped into to create deeper connections with consumers.
Indicators of these Social Forces are everywhere, if you know what to look for. Changing consumption patterns show us whether luxury cars are giving way to adventure vacations. Spiritual shifts are apparent when we see the rise of fundamentalism or the founding of new religions like the International Church of Cannabis. Professional energies are funneled into new careers like A.I. ethicist or synthetic biologist. Even something as seemingly staid as the dictionary illustrates how our language is shifting as words take on new meanings—like “basic” transforming into a snarky dig, and new words like “Latinx” and “pansexual” being added to our lexicon.
Gillette isn’t the only brand winning with younger consumers by leaning into inclusivity. The face of H&M’s 2018 pride campaign was Aaron Philip, the Black, trans and differently abled teen model who now has more than 54,000 followers. Tess Holliday, a size 22 body positivity crusader, shares unabashedly bold photos on social media as well as on the covers of both Self and Cosmopolitan. And then there is the meteoric success of Rihanna’s more inclusive makeup line, Fenty, which earned more than half a billion dollars in its first year.
The power these brands have is that they are bold, brave and at-the-ready. They have to be. By the time a new idea or value shows up in a mass consumer survey, it has already moved through culture widely enough to be voiced and shared by the masses. When we see the recent Pew data that 62% of Generation Z sees the societal value of diversity, we might nod but we could just as likely yawn. That doesn’t mean we don’t value broad consumer surveys like Pew; we use these numbers to validate and recalibrate what we’re tracking. However, if we had waited for these statistics, we would already be a step behind.
We must track and identify these leading cultural indicators so that can we help brands lead through change, not lag behind it, and to live their values in the most timely and relevant ways. Catch-up is too hard a game to play.
Emily Viola is managing director, cultural insights and brand strategy at SS+K
CNN published a perspective from P&G Chief Brand Officer Marc Pritchard, who typed over 800 words to defend the Gillette “We Believe” propaganda produced by Grey Advertising. Pritchard borrowed a gripe from Brad Jakeman by arguing the online critics are a vocal minority. Once again, Pritchard’s cultural cluelessness is on full display. That is, the man doesn’t realize that being a vocal minority should not negate the value of an opposing viewpoint. Otherwise, nearly every social movement in U.S. history—from the American Revolutionary War to Women’s Suffrage to Civil Rights—would have failed.
More disturbing is Pritchard’s contention that a brand must mount soapboxes and take stands on social and cultural issues. Pritchard pontificated, “Gillette’s ‘We Believe’ was intended to promote positive action by inspiring conversations about the best men can be. Our team constantly talks with men who say they believe being a good man means not only rejecting bad behavior, but also being a role model for positive behavior. … And academics, psychologists, non-profits and community organizers have lauded the messages and expressed their support.”
Sure, lots of people are supporting the sentiment. But would the enthusiasm erode upon learning the identities of the men behind the message? How might the public react to discovering the responsible men—Mad Men, that is—have perpetuated exclusivity in regards to race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation for countless decades? These guys are hardly “not only rejecting bad behavior, but also being a role model for positive behavior.” And the bad boy behavior only gets worse by extending matters from Grey to parent White holding company WPP.
We believe actions speak louder than advertising.
Gillette’s ‘We Believe’ ad took a stand. And I’m proud of the conversation it started
By Marc Pritchard for CNN Business Perspectives
Our team at Gillette sparked an important worldwide conversation with the new “We Believe” ad. The film shows men being role models by stepping in to stop bullying and harassment and demonstrating how to treat people with respect. It has gotten nearly 100 million views on social media. We’re proud of the ad’s message about what it means to be a good man today, and how men can step up to reject bad behavior and take positive action.
Not everyone agrees with the message and there have been some vocal detractors. Some said the ad attacks masculinity, while others said it sounded like a lecture.
We respect different viewpoints and we’re paying attention to all of them. But it’s important to distinguish between actual consumer sentiment and some of the social media reaction that does not represent the majority opinion. Independent research from multiple sources indicates a far more positive response than what has been reported. Most consumers — men and women alike — support the messages, particularly younger Millennial and Gen Z consumers. The majority who’ve seen the film feel that Gillette shares their values and indicate they feel better about the brand and are more likely to purchase its products. If nothing else, we hope people take time to view the entire film, and even if they don’t agree, they will have a constructive conversation about it.
And that’s really why we made the film. Gillette’s “We Believe” was intended to promote positive action by inspiring conversations about the best men can be. Our team constantly talks with men who say they believe being a good man means not only rejecting bad behavior, but also being a role model for positive behavior. The film is causing people to pause, reflect and consider what they can do to set an even better example — especially for the next generation of men. It is being used in school classrooms and universities to educate and encourage discussion on masculinity and culture. And academics, psychologists, non-profits and community organizers have lauded the messages and expressed their support.
“We Believe” was hardly the first time Procter & Gamble used its marketing messages for good. Ariel in India and France show men “sharing the load” in household work by doing the laundry. Dawn features men doing the dishes — like many men do every day. Pampers highlights dads lovingly sharing diaper duty. Gillette has shaped perceptions of masculinity for more than 100 years — including the iconic line “The Best A Man Can Get” — so it was time to express a more modern, positive view of what it means to be the best in today’s world.
Why do we do this? Why does one of the world’s largest and most successful consumer goods companies get involved in social or cultural issues?
The answer is simple: Consumers expect more from brands than just selling products. They want to know what brands believe in, the people behind them, their values and views, and the actions they’re taking on important issues. In fact, nearly nine of 10 consumers expect brands to take a stand on social and environmental issues, and half say they make purchase decisions based on shared beliefs with the brand. People of all ages — from Gen Z to Baby Boomers — expect brands to take a stand. And 60% of millennials make purchases driven by their beliefs.
It’s also becoming clear that doing good — like Gillette’s commitment to donating $3 million to nonprofits promoting positive role models — is good for growth. The UN indicates that achieving its sustainable development goals represents a $12 trillion economic opportunity for businesses through a fairer, broader-based and more sustainable economy. McKinsey goes further in estimating that full economic equality between women and men would add $28 trillion to the world economy.
What’s more, brands have an impact on culture and social norms through advertising. The images and portrayals of people in advertising affect perceptions because they embed memories into our minds that in turn, form bias. That’s why ad exec Madonna Badger’s 2016 Women Not Objects challenged the advertising industry to eliminate the objectification of women in advertising. And more than 75 top marketers and 1,000 brands have stepped up to join the Association of National Advertisers’ #SeeHer movement, pledging to eliminate bias by accurately and positively portraying women and girls in advertising.
Brands touch people every day, so it’s important for them to make a positive difference in the world wherever possible — including in relevant social or cultural issues. Brands are arguably the most pervasive forces in the world for business growth — and they can also be used as a force for good. Not everyone will agree with a brand’s point of view and it may be subject to criticism. But if intentions are good, brands have a responsibility to step up, take the heat and keep going — and those good intentions will eventually prevail.
Just about everyone has already criticized and commented on the Gillette “We Believe” video from Procter & Gamble and Grey, but MultiCultClassics will cut into the conversation regardless.
Back in 2013, after Wieden + Kennedy was eliminated from the shootout for the Gillette account—leaving Saatchi & Saatchi, Grey and then-incumbent BBDO as contenders—MultiCultClassics remarked that the razor brand was obviously not interested in doing creative work. The “We Believe” video confirms the contention.
First of all, Grey is a White advertising agency, despite being led by a Black man. The cultural cluelessness has been evidenced by the shop’s generational segregation, Grey Executive Strategy Director Howard Roberts sputtering divertsity psychobabble, Grey Worldwide Chief Creative Officer John Patroulis spitting up socioeconomic stupidity and Grey London CEO Leo Rayman admitting our industry lies about minority underrepresentation. With the contrived and heavy-handed “We Believe” video, Grey shows it’s woefully unqualified to even represent White men.
Procter & Gamble is equally ignorant, as well as patronizingly offensive. The advertiser has a renowned penchant for messaging formulas, and the “We Believe” video follows a disturbing blueprint last seen with “The Talk” and “#LoveOverBias.” The formula goes something like this: White corporation + questionable commitment to diversity + hypocritical call to harmony + White advertising agency production + big budget versus crumbs = pathetic bullshit that wins ADCOLOR® Award.
It doesn’t help that Procter & Gamble Chief Brand Officer Marc Pritchard confesses his cultural competence is crappy. Plus, he’s quick to jump on bandwagons—and will undoubtedly soon approve anti-ageism advertisements for Fixodent.
In summation, when exclusively White advertisers partner with exclusively White advertising agencies to deliberately deliver diversity-related duplicity designed to drive sales of consumer goods—as well as shamelessly promote false enlightenment—everyone should take offense. For the people behind “We Believe” to profess beliefs that run counter to actions is, well, unbelievable.
Adweek reported Gillette has narrowed its creative agency review to three contenders, removing Wieden + Kennedy from the competition. The remaining shops are incumbent BBDO, Saatchi & Saatchi and Grey. Um, a creative shootout that dumps W+K and keeps Saatchi & Saatchi and Grey is not really interested in creative. Additionally, it’s simply astonishing that there are no other Omnicom firms in the mix to swap with BBDO.
Gillette Cuts to Three In Creative Review
W+K out
By Noreen O’Leary
Gillette is down to three contenders in its North American advertising review, after cutting Wieden + Kennedy from the process, sources said. Still under consideration to lead creative are Saatchi & Saatchi and Grey, both longtime agency partners with Gillette corporate parent Procter & Gamble, and incumbent BBDO, which has been on the marketer’s roster since 2005. W+K is also a relative newcomer to P&G, after being hired in 2005 to work on Eukanuba and Ivory.
Those four agencies either did not respond to Adweek inquiries or declined comment, referring calls to Gillette. A company rep could not immediately be reached.
The next phase of the review is more testing of agency concepts and additional meetings, according to a source. A decision is expected in March.
Last September, Gillette launched the creative review, which covers the brand’s portfolio of products for men, including blades, razors, shaving cream, aftershave, deodorant and body wash. Media spending on those products totaled nearly $125 million in 2011, according to Nielsen. That figure does not include online spending and the assignment is for both digital and traditional advertising. The digital incumbent is BBDO unit Proximity, which is also defending its business.
This Gillette campaign from BBDO New York feels like a historical celebration of White male dominance.
