Gillette Razors have been pivotal to men’s shaving needs since their beginning in 1901. Gillette is an American razor brand based in Boston, Massachusetts, and has been owned by Procter and Gamble since 2005 when the two companies merged. Gillette started when facial hair began changing, and a clean cut established certain societal leverage compared to an overgrown beard. While men used to go into the barber’s shops around three times a week, King Camp Gillette came up with an idea of a reusable razor that can be used at home and stays sharp. Gillette is one of the first companies that introduced the concept of a disposable razor, completely transforming the men’s hygienic industry.

With 101,000 employees in their Boston headquarters, Gillette makes a yearly revenue of around 10.3 billion dollars and is one of Proctor and Gamble’s flagship brands, being sold in over 200 countries worldwide. Globally, Gillette is used by more than 750 million men.

Description of the Corporation/Market:

Today, many companies sell razors tailored explicitly to men, such as Dollar Shave Club, Panasonic, Philips, BIC, Venus, and Harry’s. While some of these razor companies are tailored to both men and women, Dollar Shave Club, in specific, shares the same primary audience as Gillette and is also a cheaper alternative. Gillette prides itself on innovation, product range, and commitment to sustainability to differentiate itself from other brands. Differentiation is key for companies competing with competitors with the same primary audience: men. The Dollar Shave Club uses light-hearted, humorous ads to reach its audience. 

Describe the Crisis Being Organized:

On January 13, 2019, Gillette released its pre-Super Bowl advertisement titled We Believe: The Best Men Can Be, which replaced the brand’s former 30-year tagline “The best a man can get.” Procter & Gamble expected this advertisement to be monumental in fostering both conversation and change regarding toxic masculinity and had references to the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement gained prominence in 2017, and it sparked a genuine cultural shift around issues of sexual harassment and assault. The 2019 commercial paid tribute to various societal trends, including #MeToo. It mainly addressed toxic masculinity, a concept that refers to harmful behaviors associated with the traditional expectations of masculinity. The advertisement shows clips of men portraying stereotypical male gender roles by including sexism in films, boardrooms, and violent reactions. Specifically, men are grilling, physically fighting, and saying sexually inappropriate comments to women in the middle of the street. During the commercial, a voice says, “Bullying, the MeToo movement against sexual harassment, toxic masculinity, is this the best a man can get?” The ad then featured men intervening to stop bullying and sexual harassment and encouraged men to hold themselves accountable for their actions and to be better role models for future generations. 

Initially, the advertisement received both praise and criticism. Some individuals and organizations applauded Gillette for taking a stand against toxic masculinity, while others accused the company of unfairly portraying all men as problematic. The controversy surrounding the ad became known as the “Gillette Me Too Crisis” due to its portrayal of issues related to the #MeToo movement. The ad sparked a plethora of social media backlash; some people then boycotted Gillette products and posted videos of themselves throwing away their razors and other products in protest. That being said, others praised the company for taking a stand on important social issues, but ultimately the controversy “has coincided with P&G’s $8 billion non-cash writedown for the shaving giant” (Ernst, 2019). 

Pre-Crisis:

The pre-crisis of the Gillette advertisement had many different factors that led back to the criticism Gillette received. Because this entire crisis was due to an advertisement they produced, this crisis was self-inflicting. Gillette needed to understand their audience appropriately because had they done so; they would have taken a different approach to form a commercial. Due to their lack of understanding of their audience, they caused collateral damage to themselves. They assumed all of their customers portrayed the worst traits of men and completely attacked all of their characters. 

The Dollar Shave Club, another men’s grooming brand that gained popularity in 2019, was collecting lots of attention with a focus on playfulness and wittiness in their ads and showing the amazingness of men. Gillette wanted to take a different approach in their marketing but did not discern their target audience’s thoughts, needs, and feelings. Unfortunately, a lack of awareness of a primary audience is vital. Gillette caused much hate and backlash due to their actions and inactions by not correctly analyzing their target audience's feelings. Although Gillette might have believed they were doing the right thing by releasing a commercial of that effect, it did not absolve them from creating a crisis for themselves. 

Taking a strong stance on any side of a topic is considered a reputational risk to the organization. By Gillette trying to be “woke” in their advertisement, they ultimately chose a side to a susceptible topic. 

Post-Crisis:

Following the backlash and initial decline in sales that resulted from Gillette’s “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be” advertisement, Gillette responded by shifting its focus towards product innovation and addressing consumer needs. Most importantly, the company tried to repair its relationship with its target consumers, men, by launching a campaign highlighting positive male role models and the importance of fatherhood—less about stereotypically negative male behavior and more about instilling positive reinforcements about positive masculinity. Gillette also collaborated with various organizations to further support men’s mental health to promote positive masculinity. Furthermore, Gillette continued to release new products and improve existing ones, including a new line of razors specifically designed for sensitive skin. 

Vice President Damon Jones of Global Communications and Advocacy at Procter and Gamble expressed in a Forbes interview, “We are not saying all guys are bad. We are not trying to misrepresent any one individual. We are saying, as a collective group, let us have a little less bad behavior and more good. That is the big message behind it” (King, 2019). This statement was made one week following the original January 13, 2019 release date of the advertisement. We feel this was adequate time for the company to formalize a meaningful statement in response to the backlash they were receiving. Essentially most critics believe that this advertising campaign was a failed attempt to maintain brand relevance. Gillette representatives also announced that as part of the campaign, the organization would be “donating one million dollars per year, over three years, to non-profit organizations in the United States that work with men to tackle some of these issues” (King, 2019). 

The Forbes interview with Damon Jones and Michelle King shed light on the corporate intent behind the ad. Jones stated, “Sometimes we have not always held up the highest communication standards [to men]. As we reflect on our purpose, we recognize that we have a responsibility and obligation to step up and improve the language and the expectation we were setting for ourselves and guys. This ad is a way for us to do that” (King, 2019). Jones assured consumers that the goal of this campaign was not to partake in trendy, woke advertising but rather to make a clear corporate stance on the significant issue at hand—toxic masculinity. Gillette is one of the largest male brands; roughly 60 to 70 percent of all Gillette sales come from men. (Dreyfuss, 2019). Using Gillette’s platform to push meaningful messages is crucial in genuinely driving societal change. Jones also highlighted that Gillette has also cultivated a partnership with The Boys and Girls Club of America to coincide with the launch of this campaign. 

The company has sought to move past “The Best a Man Can Be” controversy by refocusing on its core mission of providing high-quality grooming products and promoting positive male role models and behaviors. Damon Jones called consumers to action by finalizing the Forbes interview, stating, “What we have asked people to do is watch the advert in its entirety. Then take a minute to reflect. Obviously, we respect everyone’s opinion, but [we also] encourage people to really take a minute to look at the message through the eyes of the future generation.” (King, 2019). Ultimately, controversial marketing campaigns can have many benefits, but on the same front, they can also be equally as detrimental. 

Analysis of why the commercial had the reaction it did:

The Gillette “Me Too” commercial received a mixed reaction from the public, with some people praising the company for addressing critical social issues, while others criticized the ad for being divisive and attacking men. Ultimately, Gillette’s key consumers and target market felt targeted with negative stereotypes which led to backlash in response to the ad. The commercial challenged traditional notions of masculinity by portraying men as complicit in perpetuating harmful behaviors like bullying and sexual harassment. Several men perceived this message as an attack on men, rather than a call to address toxic behavior. 

This commercial was also seen as an example of “woke marketing,” a trend in which companies align themselves with progressive causes in order to appeal to younger, socially-conscious consumers. It is reasonable to assume that many people saw the commercial as insincere and opportunistic. It used social issues to sell products rather than making a genuine effort to effect social change. This calls into question the brand's integrity, which has been a long-time leading consumer favorite. 

Overall, the Gillette ``Me Too” commercial highlighted the challenges that companies face when addressing controversial social issues in their advertising. Taking a stand is essential, but a social position must be coupled with action to ensure consumer respect. While some people did appreciate the message, others felt alienated and offended. Unfortunately, the latter of the two groups made up the majority of Gillette’s target audience, which fueled the reach of the crisis. It is difficult to strike a balance between making a statement and promoting a product. 

Analysis of Backlash:

The backlash that Gillette received was both mixed and controversial. Some loved the campaign, claimed it to be a “fantastic ad” and thanked Gillette for its call to action. However, what caused damage to the company’s brand was the uproar amongst its consumers and stretched even further to social media and Youtube. The video itself on Youtube has received over 14 million views with double as many dislikes as likes. A majority of Gillette consumers are male and many felt as though they were being targeted and insulted.  One consumer tweeted, "imply[ing] that this is what men do, fight, barbecue and harass women" (Smith, 2019). There was even a trending hashtag, #BoycottGillette that spread across multiple social media platforms. 

Analysis of PR Crisis Communication: 

After the crisis, Gillette made it seem like they wanted this amount of media attention surrounding the ad. The company made the public aware that they were apparently preparing for some sort of backlash and put out a statement saying that "in a world where the actions of the few can taint the reputation of the many, we know there's work to be done – together" (Smith, 2019). Damon Jones, Vice President of Global Communications and Advocacy at  Proctor and Gamble, said, “We're not saying all guys are bad. We're not trying to misrepresent any one individual. What we're saying is, as a collective group, let's have a little less bad behavior and more good. That's the big message behind it.”

Gillette has been a men’s grooming company since its start in 1901. Since then, they have praised men for being the best they can be and helped them discover themselves as distinguished, proper individuals. By releasing their short film advertisement in 2019, they became a hypocrite, shaming and condemning the exact audience they have been praising and serving while automatically assuming the worst traits out of them. 

Gillette was quick to respond to the backlash they received from the advertisement and acknowledged their audience's wrong assumptions. Gillette stuck by their message and also heavily engaged with their customers via social media about their concerns. Furthermore, rather than this ad being a one-time advertisement stunt, they continue to spark the conversation about the betterment of men. This advertisement also followed with a promise to donate 3 million dollars over the span of 3 years to non-profit organizations that aim to teach boys and men how to be appropriate and kind role models. 

In terms of their PR crisis communications, Gillette did everything correctly in handling their crisis. They stood by their message while acknowledging the error they made in their assumptions. 

Why Did This Crisis Happen?:

This crisis occurred because Gillette did not properly understand their target audience, which led the audience to feel attacked, targeted, and angry. Although Gillette’s message was incredibly important, especially with the recent #MeToo movement in full gear, they attacked their audience, which led them to become angry and uninterested in using Gillette in the future. No audience should feel attacked by the company they use. 

Recommendations: 

As a young female adult, I praise Gillette for taking a stance against harmful things that men tend to do. However, there were many other ways Gillette could have gone about this in a way that wouldn’t have caused so much uproar. Gillette could have taken the same message they were trying to send while being more conscious of their target audience’s feelings. Rather than condemning bad behavior, they could have praised great behavior; showing men in triumph after sticking up for the underdog as an example. Additionally, this advertisement could have been broken down into parts, tackling one issue at a time to avoid overbearing assumptions about its audience. While it’s important for a company to preach what they think is right, rather, it’s much more important to preach what they think will be effective for its audience. While some may argue that it is important to hear the truth about a topic no matter if it is hard to hear, today, in our extremely polarized society, many people shut off when views differ from their own. 

Conclusion: 

Gillette’s crisis was indeed a para crisis because the crisis management team needed to deal with the repercussions of the advertisement in the eyes of all of its stakeholders and most of the country. “Relationships are at the heart of the link between stakeholders and the organizations.” Gillette did not meet the expectations of their audience, instead assumed the worst of all of them and attacked their character. Although they were suitable for taking a stance on an important issue, it clearly did not absolve them from creating a crisis.