#OhpleasenotanotherGillettearticle

Good thing about brands that come out with a REAL point of view on their world, consumers, and categories : you can tell they made a clever move when they start a discussion. But the discussion around the recent Gillette ad has taken a surprising turn in my own LinkedIn news flow, with many people coming across like they feel ? obligated ? to love it, and many others coming up with criticism which feels, to say the least, like it misses the mark. And there IS a mark.

Of course you don’t HAVE to like the Gillette ad, just because the zeitgeist says you should. But if you dislike it, at least dislike it for the right reasons. (warning : long OPINION piece. Contains potential offense and risks of getting bored before the end, a little like the Gillette film itself) (the brackets just now were a tribute to my friends in the P&G legal department) (? friends ? was not meant as a joke).

Don’t dislike the Gillette film because ? Gillette has no right to come out against the wrong side of masculinity. ? Gillette has a moral DUTY and, frankly, a strategic obligation to take the lead on that conversation. As the brand that’s encapsulated the essence of the Western world’s vision of what ? being a man’s man ? should mean for ages, it reaches more people with more credibility on that issue than any other brand around – which pretty much creates the moral obligation, unless your brand team has no clue about what brand purpose means. Or, you know. Lives on another planet. And for the same reason, the brand was in danger of being fossilized into a stuck-in-the-90’s representation of masculinity that would have eroded its relevance in no time. Anyone who thinks they shouldn’t have touched the issue seriously needs to think about what alternative option was there for them. Pretend #metoo never happened ? Commit passive suicide in public ? Come on.

Don’t dislike it either because it ? has so little to do with the product. ? If that’s really what you think, you probably haven’t really thought about what brand purpose really means, and how it connects to what the brand does. The brand or product is meant to be ONE of the potential contributors to the purpose. Which means, there’s a link, but it doesn’t have to be front and center. That comment about ? not enough product ? is a particularly strange one coming, as it often does, from the same people who praised the exact same intent and level of connection between purpose and product with the (subjectively far superior) ? Like a girl ? from Always.

Don’t, please don’t dislike it because it ? undermines men ? in any way. If that’s what you think, well. I’ll skip to the end and say - you don’t belong in my contact list. You do, however, belong to the middle ages. Send us a postcard, will you.

I would argue you shouldn’t even dislike it for the strategy behind it. Evolving from ? the best a man can get ? to a purpose of ? bringing out the best in man ? is very smart – one of those ideas that feel so brilliantly simple, it’s a wonder no one had it before (although, given how P&G works, the actual idea is probably at least 2 years old ? ; the alumni will know what I’m talking about). Also, the notion of ? transmission ? to the next generation at the heart of the story makes Gillette even more legitimate as a story teller. Who among us wasn’t taught how to shave by their dad (if he was around) ? It’s a smart move, and it really computes with the brand’s history and role in our lives.

Don’t dislike it either because ? It’s just P&G trying to replicate ? Like a girl ? or even Dove’s ? real beauty ? again ?. So ? Have you decided not to do anything digital because it’d make you look like a copycat ? Isn’t EVERY business and brand spending most of their resources identifying, then replicating patterns of success ? What exactly is wrong about that ? How do you think Motown worked ?

Don’t, please, please don’t serve the oh-so-millenial bullshit around ? aaah, but a brand is ONLY what its consumers think it is, and so if so many consumers disagree, then the brand is wrong. ? That is the most annoying one of all the wrong ones floating around these days (ok, barring the ? demeaning and diminishing of men ? quoted above, but does that even qualify as a ? comment ? ?). A brand is defined at the crossroads between what it wants to be and existing perceptions of what it is. Between self-definition and consumer perception. Of course you won’t ever convince consumers that your brand is anything that’s completely at odds with whatever their current perception might be (it’s the old case / joke about how Old Spice nearly became ? New spice ? - before the brand team came to their senses, ditched the plan and embraced consumers’ perception of Old Spice being ? old ? - and brilliantly reinvented it into ? the brand of the experienced man ?). But it’s your responsibility as a marketer to reconcile that perception with a vision of where your brand’s know-how and your category’s evolution will take you, and to formulate an equity that stands proudly where your vision and your consumer’s perception meet – and greet. Other than that, you’re not "marketing a brand". You’re running polls - different jobs. Or you're a demagogue, or you’re a baby-boomer trying to pass for a millenial, and either way, please, get a grip.

NOW.

‘Far as I’m concerned – you can TOTALLY question, dislike, regret, the EXECUTION. I for one completely agree with the need for the brand to pre-empt and own the issue. And I really like the strategic choices behind the film. I just really struggle with the film itself.

It probably and disappointingly ranks as one of the most cliché-ridden, cheese-filled, half-assed realizations of any self-respecting idea or strategy that I can think of in the brand’s history. Even those 80’s Top-Gun-styled ads I'm sure will age better. It’s so chock-full of cringe-worthy scenes and dramatic flaws, it was literally a pain for me as an ex P&Ger, ex Gillette marketer to watch it to the end. There’s one moment of surreal brilliance in it – the ? boys will be boys ? barbecue line. Most of the rest of it feels flat-footed, forced and fake – a million miles away from the heart-warming natural simplicity of all the ? Like a girl ? films, and more into the hopelessly artificial, cheap realm of cookie-cutter feel-good comedy shows. You might not notice it at first – but after a few watches, the non-stop over-writing, over-acting, over-emoting, ham-fisted soundtrack and Hobbit-level-pompousness of the VO delivery will finally get to you. It’s gotten to me to the point where I didn’t even find the patience to watch it again before writing this. Oh, and the VO also does a pretty poor job at connecting this new point of view with the brand’s previously ? traditional ? take on masculinity, which wouldn’t have been hard to do – but the fact that it’s not done is probably why a lot of people say they ? miss the product ? in it : what they really miss is an element that explains the continuity between where Gillette is going and where they’re coming from. I'm sure a lot of very talented people were involved. But even talented people get it collectively wrong sometimes. And it shows - especially because they're held to a higher standard.

Shame, ‘cause as the old H&S ad went, you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. Still – this is one and only ONE screwed-up execution of a strategy which clearly has power and mileage. Think of it this way : most of the artists or bands you love actually started with a crappy first album or single – and then, they worked on how to present their style and identity, and got it right, and reached some form of greatness or another. So let’s call this one the first try that almost made it. I for one hope and trust Gillette stick with this new purpose and the strategy behind it. And that they bite the bullet when cavemen all over the world throw away their razors and blades and decide to forever boycott the brand (starting with famous TV-millionaire-blowhard Piers Morgan, whose beard I am hoping to see reach ZZ-Top styled lengths in the near future). Because – not only is it the morally right thing to do (which after all is what purpose is meant to be about), but they will get a lot of loyalty in return from a lot of, you know, actual men.