BLOG TIME

2019 has had a feisty start in the marketing and advertising world, hasn’t it? 

The new Gillette commercial has every marketing or advertising professional globally sharing their opinion on the new North American brand ad. One of those internet moments where no matter how hard you try, you simply cannot escape.

What’s the big deal?

Why has this campaign caused such controversy? There are a number of positions being taken both by the general population and industry professionals.

Society seems to be largely divided into women who feel strongly about male masculinity (just the toxic type they are quick to point out) and men who feel either offended by the generalisation or actually have more important things to worry about than a razor blade brand’s view on society.

Professionals are caught up in the debate about brand purpose, marketing objectives and the execution of the advertisement.

Will the campaign make an impact on sales and market share for a brand that has been in steady decline for years now? So far no major impact seems evident either way.

In this debate, whose opinion matters?

From a business point of view the only opinions that matter are those of the Gillette consumers.

Regardless of the brand purpose, the leaders at P&G will be interested in two things:

1) Positive Brand Positioning

• Positioning the brand positively with the target audience
• Providing a powerful creative platform to drive consumer engagement programs (remember the brand ad itself is merely a mass media touch point driving awareness, far more spend will go into other channels in their marketing budget)

2) Sales and Market Share

• Providing a platform for improved performance in sales and market share.
  
  

Gillette seems to have identified a developing millennial target segment which it feels will turn around the share and sales decline it has been suffering for years.  In every major brand with any sort of longevity there comes a time for the brand to move forward, aggressively towards a new audience providing it does not do major damage to its existing core base. Calculated risk analysis is made on whether there is a net gain to be made in the long term by repositioning the brand for a younger audience. 

And the outcome so far?

The ad has resonated strongly, somewhat unsurprisingly, with women. Many of whom are quick to defend it very vigorously on social media. On the other hand, some women have taken to social media questioning the pricing of Gillette female products.  Being more expensive than their male equivalents they’re calling the campaign hypocritical.

Some industry professionals who support the intent behind the campaign point out that women in many homes actually are the purchasers of the product so this is a deliberate strategic move.

This is flawed thinking. If one were to assume that women are indeed the main purchaser of men’s shaving blades in a household, it does not necessarily mean that they are also the decision maker. Men are far more particular about their razor blade than they are about shampoo or even toothpaste. They are therefore far more likely to insist on a preferred razor blade even if they are not making the final purchase. This is a brand advert, not shopper marketing exercise.

And if the target audience is a younger millennial male then its also likely that he may be single.

So what then of the actual core male existing user or potential new user of this product?

The proof of the success of this campaign will be evident in its performance with its key target audience. 

I suspect that there are going to be three broad groups which are likely to vary by age demographic:

1) Haters – those that hate the commercial and feel offended by the accusatory nature of the commercial and are now more open to competitor brand messages
2) Indifference – Those that might be mildly offended but don’t care enough and will stay with the product because of the product quality and their personal history with that product
3) Lovers – Those that embrace the new positioning as something which aligns with his views on the world and progress.

The jury is out. I suspect that the bulk of the results will sit in the indifference bucket for now.  There is no history with this position for Gillette. The radical shift seems somewhat off brand. This is where the brand may very well have got ‘purpose brand’ strategy wrong. 

Bigger Questions: Brand Purpose or Not?

There is a classic marketing video on Youtube where Steve Jobs talks about the importance of values in marketing. It was recorded around the time of the launch of ‘Here’s to the crazy ones’.  Apple, with Jobs at the helm for the second time, was determined to sell itself as the challenger brand that actually changed the world for the better. And they did. Their values drove everything from their design philosophy to product innovation pipeline, to category disruption (how Apple changed the music industry) and retail experiences.

But most companies simply are not Apple.

The notion of being a purpose first business is a noble and powerful one when harnessed correctly and is delivered upon authentically. 

Nike has been doing it for years. It’s the foundation of their brand communication. So when they take the risk of polarising the market, the decision is very simple. Is this on brand or is it not? The ‘Believe in Something’ campaign, for example, was 100% true to Nike, its athletes and core consumers. Love it or hate it. It’s very much on brand.

So this leads us to a few questions for Gillette. What is its real DNA as a brand?  How does it position itself from a brand purpose perspective to speak authentically and with credibility? What is Gillette supposed to represent?

The Gillette brand now has the task of following through on its new brand purpose. How do they bring this to life in its products and customer experience? Customers today are quick to embrace authenticity and this is exactly where Gillette will be seen to have gone wrong should they not follow through.  They are at risk of simply trying to be a ‘me too’ brand (pun intended) rather than standing for something which is real and rooted in its values and DNA.

And this is where the challenge now lies for P&G.

Where do they go from here?


REFERENCES:

There are a number of insightful pieces of thinking which I came across in my research for this post as follows:

Mark Ritson:

This is the first article I read after the Gillette campaign started blowing up (he had me at ‘purpose wank’).

https://www.marketingweek.com/2019/01/15/mark-ritson-gillette-ad-toxic-masculinity

Steve Jobs:

Great insight into Steve Jobs thinking on marketing many years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keCwRdbwNQY&t=255s

Joe Rogan:

One of the the more interesting responses to me was Joe Rogan. This is real world response from somebody far closer to the Gillette target audience in North America than the average marketing or advertising executive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JVmtaTVKPU

Marketing Week:

Gillette brand takes a hit as ‘#metoo’ ad backfires by Sarah Vizard

https://www.marketingweek.com/2019/01/18/gillette-brand-takes-hit-as-metoo-ad-backfires

Fast CO:

Very concise articulation around the truth or not behind brand purpose.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90293137/brand-purpose-is-a-lie

The Guardian: Is Colin Kaepernick’s Nike deal activism – or just capitalism? by Ben Carrington and Jules Boykoff

Another for those slightly more cynical about brand purpose

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/06/colin-kaepernick-nike-activism-capitalism-nfl