After being consistent with their brand message ‘The best man can get’, in 2019, Gillette came out with a highly controversial ad named ‘The best man can be’. Within the three days of release, the video had over 12 million views and an overwhelming number of dislikes. While some praised the bold move Gillette had taken, the major backlash perceived the video to be distasteful and stereotyping.

Pankaj Bhalla – Gilette’s North America Brand Director stated that the campaign was reported to be carefully planned after intensive market research which came back with an insight that men ‘want to do better, but don’t know how’ – and the campaign shows that they can do so by standing up to bad behaviours. However, the way they put it across is what rubbed people the wrong way.

The reverse sandwich method

The sandwich method is when criticism is sandwiched between two positive reinforcement. However, Gillette started the ad with a negative, give some good examples, and finished off with negative. This gave the audience the implication that the majority is bad and there was only a good minority, which was overgeneralised, stereotyping and downright condescending.

Mixed message

Professor Robert Caldini, whose theory in customer behavior influence very well-known, suggests that people tend to try to fit in by following the norm to gain approval and avoid disapproval. He performed an experiment called the ‘Petrified Woods’ by putting up a sign saying, “Your heritage is being vandalised every day by theft losses of petrified wood of fourteen tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time.” The amount of wood stolen increased significantly. Caldini argued that was due to the mixed message the sign had given. While saying stealing is bad, it also implied that everybody was doing it, therefore it would be okay if you did it too.

Gilette ad portrayed the same mixed message. While depicting sexual harassing, catcalling, bullying was bad, it also implied that the majority of men were doing it, which was counter-productive to the message they tried to put forward. A research was conducted by P&G (Gillette’s parent company) reported that respectful, honest, have integrity and hard-working are four factors making a great man. Instead of posing the message in a way that appears preachy and scolding, should Gillette has delivered it differently?

Is it intentional?

This ad is a careful plan from both P&G and Gillette. While it might receive heavy criticism from the audience, mostly males, the data has shown that it was perceived positively by women. With most of the shaving conversation-generators and home shoppers are women, this might be a calculated move.

The Data Behind Gillette’s Ad Shows It Had the Biggest Impact With Women

The question.

Although this is a risky gamble, alienating your core audience is never a good move. There are still so many ways to deliver a powerful and positive message without making people feel like #Metoo propaganda is forcing down their throat. What is your take on this campaign? Do you think Gillette has succeeded?