GILLETTE’S #METOO MOMENT

Gillette’s new ad – The Best Men Can Be has sparked a great deal of commentary – both positive and negative.  Images of men throwing their razors into the garbage and even the toilet (and I thought flushing my used Q tips was bad) and calls for boycotts came from what seems to be a majority of men.  Others – and not just women – have applauded the ad.

But dismissing men angered by this ad as examples of “toxic masculinity” is too simple.

My original reaction was anger.  At first look it seemed to paint all men with the same brush of toxic masculinity.  Certainly the scene of a long line of men behind their BBQs repeating “boys will be boys” while two kids are fighting in the back yard implied this.  But I don’t know too many fathers that would not break up that fight.

And bullying?  I don’t think it is strictly gender specific.  Mean Girls may be a fictional movie, but girls do have their own ways of bullying,  The Reena Virk tragedy is an extreme case in which both genders bullied and killed.  Suggesting bullying is only a male trait is wrong.

And what is meant by ‘toxic masculinity’?  Does that mean masculinity in general is bad?  Some may interpret it that way.

There have been suggestions that this ad is comparable to beauty ads targeting women to make them feel lacking in some physical attribute.  How does suggesting a women’s complexion could be fresher or their bodies by more shapely compared to telling a whole gender that they are despicable?

It is understandable that so many men, when first viewing the ad, would react negatively and take offense.  We are not all like the men whose transgressions have made the news in recent years.

Why did Gillette launch this ad?  Millennials, according to research, want to associate with brands that have a social conscience.    Gillette is an aging brand that has lost market share, in large part due to the trend towards the ‘scruffy look’.  The brand needs a boost (It is interesting to note that they sell razors for women that are pink and more expensive than men’s razors).

Gillette has alienated a large portion of their key segment of male customers.  Where did they go wrong with this ad?  Some commentators have made an interesting point – the real message is men must not be bystanders when they see objectionable behaviour.  We are not all ‘toxic’ – but we know someone who is.  We should take a stand when we see it.  The latter part of the ad shows men intervening when they see inappropriate behaviour.

That is the real message:  Set a good example of positive masculinity.  When we see the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Jian Ghomeshi, we can’t ignore their actions.  We would all agree with that.  But Gillette failed to deliver that message to the majority of men.  It was tone deaf.  The first impression was very negative and angered men.  That anger caused many of us to overlook the positive message.

As some have suggested, perhaps showing only positive role models rather than several toxic situations, would be more effective in delivering the message.  If the ad didn’t obscure the main message with the inflammatory content at the ad’s beginning, they may have achieved what they wanted – recognized by all their customers as a socially engaged and responsible brand.

But the long term effects, like the Nike / Colin Kaepernick ad in 2018, could be positive.  Gillette took a stand and that is what will be remembered once the anger subsides.  A case of short term pain, long term gain.