Rolling Maleness and Masculinity Discussion Thread

"'Men are not the target audience of this ad.'

"That's really interesting. Do you think that this would be obvious to most people in marketing?"

I think so, particularly if they know about Procter & Gamble's strategy. (Part of my partner's job is knowing something about the personal care business world.) But there are some clues in the ad itself, especially the longform version -- showing the existing slogan in low-res video and then having an act of violence burst through it is a pretty on-the-nose way to do a re-branding, failing to show any men that male viewers would want to be until Terry Crews appears halfway in-- until that point, the men shown are pensive, victimized, or victimizers, while the women in the first half are shown being strong or tough or nurturing even in the face of victimization. Even importing Terry Crews from another P&G brand to Gillette says something. Corporations as large about P&G have to know about public attitudes to a million billion things, but they only ever want to change public attitudes on three types of things: attitudes toward political decisions that benefit their shareholders, attitudes toward their brands, and attitudes toward their products -- and they never ever ever want target markets to feel bad about themselves. This ad would make marketing sense if P&G no longer wants separate branding for Gillette and Gillette for Women.

― Three Word Username, Monday, January 14, 2019 6:23 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Any source for this other than inside info? It's interesting but it would be nice to have a (non-breitbart) article or something like that making that case

is there a brietbart article making the case? it does seem likely that insulting your customers or inveighing against them to be less shitty are not great strategies if your intention is to sell them a product. what's the alternative? that they're a corporation moved by social responsibility and they're willing to alienate some of their customers in order to "make a difference"?

https://goat.com.au/metoo/gillettes-anti-toxic-masculinity-ad-is-so-sharp-that-of-course-its-cut-toxic-men-deep?fbclid=IwAR1OggiwUqIHfojyOxwyxKLbFk4kAoegEMZKLMICAx3vQTTgZG9lCLgGbvI

Something a fb friend posted from Au.

ppl who are normally skeptical of corporate motivations esp when it comes to promotion and advertising (not saying this is anyone in particular, just as a general statement) probably shouldn't suspend that skepticism just bc they like the message

facial hair: uncomfortable, mild dysphoria. shaving: tedious, nick this same damn mole on my face 2/3 of the time. laser: intimidating, unknown.

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Monday, January 14, 2019 3:07 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

once again silby and i are on the same page

Meanwhile, one brave advertiser senses an opportunity:

Ball Deodorant: Sometimes the best inventions are the most obvious! You put deodorant under your arms, doesn't it make sense to put it on down there? Your balls will thank you → https://t.co/JX5CsVG8jG pic.twitter.com/RvyhpLXgjl

— Manscaped (@manscaped) December 18, 2018

perfect for marketing of masculinity

I couldn't tell if he was powdering them or punching them.

brad u can ilxmail me anytime if u want a penpal

https://goat.com.au/metoo/gillettes-anti-toxic-masculinity-ad-is-so-sharp-that-of-course-its-cut-toxic-men-deep?fbclid=IwAR1OggiwUqIHfojyOxwyxKLbFk4kAoegEMZKLMICAx3vQTTgZG9lCLgGbvI

Something a fb friend posted from Au.

― There's more Italy than necessary. (in orbit), Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:22 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this catch-22, "if you don't like the ad that just proves how correct and necessary the ad is" reaction to the backlash feels like something that's implicit in the ad itself, and part of the reason why it rubs some men the wrong way? like it's *daring* you not to like it, because if you have a problem with it that means you're fragile/toxic/beta/inadequate/misogynistic etc

I think Breitbart is much more liker to argue (incorrectly) that Procter & Gamble gives a fuck about anything but shareholder value than I am. I see this as a really good example of the oft-ignored proposition that no idea is so righteous that it can't be co-opted. American men as a genre sure can do better than they are doing; P&G also don't give a fuck about me.

yeah I mean obviously they are doing it for their bottom line, I just meant the specific idea that the ad is aimed at women and not men, which I think is very interesting from a marketing/branding perspective

it's *daring* you not to like it, because if you have a problem with it that means you're fragile/toxic/beta/inadequate/misogynistic etc

― soref, 15. januar 2019 18:58 (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yup. It's nicely done.

I mean it makes sense. If I wanted to make an ad aimed at men I'd just make an ad that makes beards look stupid and dated and unattractive.

Here's an idea: First-person POV walking into an office, heads keep turning, attractive women taking notice, all the men have goofy, exaggerated facial hair and are gawking. Perspective switch and you see a handsome, square-jawed, clean-shaven man. He touches his own freshly shaven jaw as if to say "I guess it's the shave." Slogan: "It's time to show your face." That's how you sell to men. Imply that your product will make them more attractive to women and admired by other men, while playing on their insecurities at the same time. It's not that complicated, get your shit together advertisers!

Good ad man alive

i'm cypriot and this anti-beard talk is violence

personally i think shaving products and their advertisements are also needlessly gendered

they kinda did that with the ad showing all the people with shaved heads getting high powered jobs or whatever. idk if it was effective but it seemed like a good shaving ad to me

A - male - friend of mine just retweeted this:

Well, I can tell you exactly which men’s care brand will never get my money, and it ain’t Gillette. pic.twitter.com/6Q4UZ5fuN8

— Dan Moren (@dmoren) January 15, 2019

big who cares

so yeah, it might be about provoking a contrast?

I remember a poet in the "words tent" at Glastonbury in the late 90s had a poem about "is that really the best a man can get?" and "apparently gay people don't shave" - they could've hired him but no.

in these kinds of brand battles over "serious" issues everyone comes out dumber

re boys will be boys - how often is that idiom used to excuse sexually abusive behavior as opposed to stuff like rough housing and general wildness? bc the two are not synonymous. i'm sure it has been used for the former before but recently it has become a stand-in for excusing abuse whereas i think i almost always see it as an explanation for rowdiness.

Isn't it used as an excuse for two boys fighting in the ad?

can't wait for the future when there are distinct woke and anti-woke brands of literally every banal household product and you can't buy toilet paper without it being a political statement

Market segmentation pretty much guarantees that outcome

if gillette is losing money to ppl not shaving (and probably market share to companies like dollar a day or whatever they are called - i don't buy razors bc they're against the torah), then it's unlikely a campaign like this is a bold step forward to reclaiming the market and setting the trends. it's more of a desperation move to generate some publicity. i've seen so many posts on twitter that are like "i like the message but i still wouldn't buy gillette" and that has gotta not be the result they're hoping for

it's more of a desperation move to generate some publicity

Is that true, though? Looking at P&G's 2018 annual report real quickly, it seems like both a) financially they've improved YoY compared to 2017, and b) "Grooming," as a business segment, comprises the lowest portion (10%) of their sales after Fabric & Home Care (32%), Baby, Feminine and Family Care (27%), Beauty (19%) and Health Care (12%). And even the Grooming segment seems to be performing well both in terms of earnings/profit and compared to FY17.

I'll buy anything that makes the process of shaving any easier.

i guess the alternatives are they just really think it'll be a good campaign to generate new business (and maybe it will be! i'm not an advertising professional) or they have a motivation beyond their profit margin (skeptical but sure). honestly corporate social messaging of any sort if sorta bewildering to me but esp when it is such a tone negative ad. the message may ultimately be positive but it's a pretty dark, violent, dreary image their associating with their brand. what do the numbers look like on specifically gillette vs the rest of their brands? maybe that'll give more insight?

The only ads anyone sees these days are the ones that get shared, this has been widely shared, how many of those were hate-clicks is irrelevant, I don't foresee a serious gillette boycott taking place.

if i were gillette i'd be less concerned about a boycott and more concerned about ppl just having general negative impressions of the brand

But it's not a tone negative ad at all? It's uplifting, with strings and everything. They're linking themselves to people like Terry Crews. It's not any more negative, dark and violent, than it would be if they linked themselves to policemen, for instance.

I mean is this any different than the Nike thing really? they know which way the wind is blowing.

i disagree. ppl fighting, ppl catcalling, ppl being abusive, "the best a man can get, or is it" [or whatever the exact idiom was]

the nike thing was uplifting imo in a way this wasn't. they used a controversial figure but they studiously avoided negative themes and attitudes

I don't know who Terry Crews is so it means nowt to me.

yeah I also agree with Mordy, it's a weird-ass commercial with a very dreary vibe

a terrorized little boy in his worried mother's arms etc

Doing a ctrl+f on the 10-Q, Gillette is mentioned some 38 times, but this portion seems most relevant:

Grooming: We compete in shave care and appliances. In Shave
Care, we are the global market leader in the blades and razors
market. Our global blades and razors market share is nearly
65%, primarily behind the Gillette franchise, including our
Fusion, Mach3, Prestobarba and Venus brands. Our
appliances, such as electric shavers and epilators, are sold
under the Braun brand in a number of markets around the world
where we compete against both global and regional
competitors. We hold nearly 25% of the male shavers market
and over 50% of the female epilators market.

From what I can see in terms of market share, they hold a bigger one there than in nearly anything else; but the overall segment is a lower contributor to revenue. The only other named brand I see that's anywhere close is Bounty paper towels at 40%.

P&G is actually a client of my company's. (NB we do not do advertising/marketing but are involved in their corporate communications/investor relations.) My guess is that, as speculated above, this is designed to appeal more to women than to men, since women make something like 70% of the average household's retail shopping purchase decisions. So yeah, they're trying to be perceived as "woke" so the people who do the shopping will buy Gillette for their male partners/husbands even if another brand is on sale.

What is the contribution to profit though -- razor cartridges are probably a very high-margin product, whereas paper towels are probably not.

That is true, also Fusion cartridges require a collateralized loan to purchase nowadays. tbh I'm not interested in looking into it much further, but 65% market share in a product segment is "We could make an ad of a monkey pissing into its own mouth" territory.

It takes forty seconds until the voiceover says 'but something finally changed'. After that people start smiling and it says 'we believe in the best in men'. And the strings intensify. It's clearly meant to be an uplifting ad.

My guess is that, as speculated above, this is designed to appeal more to women than to men, since women make something like 70% of the average household's retail shopping purchase decisions

this seems plausible to me fwiw i don't have any inside information but i could see this ad appealing to women, both if they're buying on behalf of their spouses and if gillette (as was speculated above) is trying to combine its brands into one unisex brand

xp maybe it's just a misfire?

Anyway you're all overlooking the real story

Today, we live in a world in which brainpower is the new currency of success. pic.twitter.com/a3McYUuGXD

— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) January 15, 2019

x-post: Yeah, sure, you can think it's a bad uplifting ad. But if we speculate what the intention is, then it's not that strange. They're trying to align themselfs with positive attitudes, bravery, kindness, honesty.

i just rewatched and i disagree with your reading tbh.

"bullying, the metoo movement against sexual harassment, toxic masculinity. is this the best a man can get? is it?”

images of men sadly/sombering looking in the mirror at themselves. an old gillette commercial being broadcast on a screen is torn apart by a bunch of young boys chasing another boy.

texts that say “Freak. you’re such a loser. everyone hates you.” a mom holding her upset son and trying to comfort him.

“we can’t hide from it. it’s being on far too long.”

images of sexual harassment, catcalling, objectification of women. will arnett?? men laughing freakishly at this.

“making the same old excuses. boys will be boys.” long line of men all saying over and over boys will be boys like an adult swim interlude.

shot of reporter talking about allegations of sexual assault. “but something finally changed, and there will be no going back. because we believe in the best of men.” clip of man saying “men need to hold other men accountable.”

clip of man saying “smile sweetie” and another man says, “c’mon.”

“to say the right thing. to act the right way. some already are.” boys still chasing other boy. guy leers at woman and friend tells him not cool. a man tells his daughter “I am strong” and she repeats it. two boys are wrestling and a dad runs over to break them up shouting “guys!”

voiceover: “but some is not enough. because the boys watching today will be the men of tomorrow."

it's pretty dark straight through, shows images of violence and abuse straight through, is shot in a weirdly dark and alienating way, and ends up with "some is not enough," ie still angry and negative. it's really not uplifting at all. again - you can like the message and think it's a good message but is it good advertising?