Gillette ad: A better brand message, or a faux pas?

After Nike, its the turn for another major brand to jump on the bandwagon of using social messages in their commercials. Gillette has sparked up immediate controversy with their new commercial.

These are my thoughts on it from a branding perspective:

1. Firstly, it's not just about an ad. It's about the vision. What identity does the brand want to build for itself in the future? Is this commercial just a one-off move, or the first step towards a re-branding, about making a conscious move towards trying to make the world better for women, through all of the company's future actions? Only time will tell.

2. By releasing it just before the Superbowl, they made their audience doubt their intention of really standing up for a social cause, creating skepticism that it's all about using it just to drive sales. With a different timing, the result could have been slightly different.

3. Overall, it is not just one ad that can change a brand identity overnight. It can of course indicate which audience it's trying to reach specifically, or not, like Nike did. But in the case of Nike, it was quite obvious as the target being millennials.

With quite a bit of the Gillette commercial featuring white men with families, are they the target? Or the millennial men? Since men usually buy their own shaving products, unlike many household items for which the purchase decision is driven by women, standing up against #toxicmasculinity, though probably appealing to some women (who don't see it as male-bashing), may not have much effect on sales. So who the brand is trying to resonate with is not very clear.

4. If the ad was trying to tell men to be more aware about their comments and actions so they don't dabble in sexism without knowing it, there could probably have been better ways to do it. Is a start, and this one, better than none?

Depends on the conversation the brand is really trying to have. It's telling men to be more accountable for others, not being more aware themselves. Not about 'the best a man can be', but 'the best another man can make you be'. So men telling other men what to do. How does that fit into the psychography of men?

Overall, fueling controversies can work for a brand, if it is very sure whom it wants to target and what it wants to say. It did with Nike, although Nike tied it very closely towards their fundamental identity of athleticism. Any other men's brand could do the Gillette commercial, put a different line at the end, and it could still work.

What it has done for Gillette, though, is that it has drawn sudden attention to the brand, and forced people to think about their perceptions and values.

This ad seems like it had good intentions, but so far, seems to have missed the mark in having a clear brand message for a specific, defined target.

And it is also a strong example of how if people will buy from you based on what you portray you do and do not stand for, communicated through your message.

So make sure that every message you create, every action you take, matches your brand values.

What are your thoughts, on the strongly expressed opinions so far, on this ad?

• Do you think it is trying to portray all (white) men as rapists and misogynists?
• Does the brand seem to be exploiting a social message just for profits?
• Are all people, especially men, getting worked up about something as inconsequential as an, as they are insecure, or are they right to stand up and boycott a brand which doesn't resonate with them anymore?
• Some men claim that they just want a good razor to shave, and not be lectured to, because they are not as terrible as the men portrayed anyway in the ad. Should the commercial have just focused on the products instead?

Would love to hear your comments!