Gillette, Razors, and Toxic Masculinity
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ?
In January of 2019, Gillette released its now infamous ad for razors called “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be.” In the ad, background voices mention bullying and sexual harassment. The narrator asks, “Is this the best a man can get?” over an image of the iconic Gillette motto: “The Best a Man Can Get.” We see a series of men behaving badly, while the narrator asks if we can do better. The ad then shifts to a series of men behaving well, supporting one another, encouraging and loving others. The comments on YouTube — after 32 million views — are largely negative.
At the time the ad was released, I was asked by several media local outlets to comment on the ad. Did I think it was a positive step? Yes, I did. Did I think it was a good move for Gillette? I was less certain. While I thought it was the right message aimed at the right audience, it was too soon to tell whether or not the ad campaign would sell razors. Whatever social conscience the execs or ad department might have, they are fundamentally trying to sell razors.
Very recently, however, I have seen several headlines celebrating the fact that Gillette has posted poor earnings. In fact, it lost a significant amount of money. Some critics of the campaign saw it as a vindication. And, to be fair, they (some of them, anyway) used a familiar argument: it’s a free country, and you can say whatever you like, but that doesn’t mean it won’t have consequences. This argument is precisely the same argument that left-leaning individuals and groups have made after, say, a bakery refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple. They have a right to refuse, but there will be consequences. Those chickens have a way of coming home to roost.
But is that what’s happening here? Is Gillette’s financial loss caused by the Toxic Masculinity ad? Or did it simply occur after it? In other words, is it a question of causation or correlation? Did Gillette miscalculate the political moment? Was the public — and the razor buyers of the US — unprepared for a socially-conscious ad campaign?
Perhaps. But it’s not that simple, either. While it’s true that some were offended by the ad, others were won over by it. A common feature of contemporary boycotts is that they frequently attract as many as they detract. After boycotts were announced for Cracker Barrel and Chik-fil-a for anti-LGBTA comments, supporters of the restaurants — and presumably the cause — flocked to those establishments. When boycotts were announced for Nike following its Colin Kaepernick ad, others rushed out to support Nike and Kaerpernick. In fact, they seem to have profited from the boycott. But even so, the boycott could have accounted for some of Gillette’s 5.24 billion dollar loss.
Still, it’s also true that fewer people are shaving — and this has been Gillette’s argument regarding the loss. Have you walked through Brooklyn lately? Have you looked at Instagram? Have you turned on reality TV? On the recent season of The Bachelorette, for example, of the 30 men who began their journey to Hannah B’s heart, fully two-thirds of them sported some kind of facial hair. And that’s just in their cast photos. On the show itself, even more of them bore facial hair.
And for hipsters, facial hair — and a LOT of it — seems to be de rigueur.
Standards of appearance change over time. Standards of personal grooming change all the time. Standards of masculinity change, too. National sales of razors change.
While the Statista company projects that the number of people who will use disposable razors will increase modestly over the next four years, they also project that the number of people who will opt NOT to use them will increase even more. More people, and more people not using disposable razors.
The decline could also be attributed to environmental issues. Lots and lots of disposable razors end up in landfills. The current estimate is that 2 billion razors get discarded each year in the US alone. That’ll fill up a landfill. Instead, some environmentally conscious shavers are opting for electronic razors, double-edged safety razors, and straight razors. Or, to sport a beard.
I don’t discount the effect of men being pissed at Gillette. The company called them out, and they got defensive. The company challenged long-standing social norms, and people reacted. Not entirely novel. Or unpredictable. Let’s face it, change is hard, and some men clearly do not want to give up the privilege of toxic masculinity. Some men don’t want to face their complicity in a toxic culture. The backlash against the ad campaign demonstrates that. And the comments on the YouTube page of the ad demonstrate exactly why we need to continue to push for change.
For those who would say that companies should not be in the social engineering business, I say nonsense. They have always been in the social business. They have always sold an image of normalcy, of desirability, of legitimacy. They have always sold us on the idea of acceptability. And unacceptability. Furthermore, they have far more reach than activists, academics, and columnists.
In the wake of the two-minute ad on masculinity, Gillette has released a number of other socially conscious ads. One ad shows a father teaching his transgender son to shave. Another ad features a plus-sized model, Anna O’Brien, and calls for fat acceptance and body positivity. The Gillette website features a section called The Best Men Can Be, which shows men who are “advocates, mentors, and leaders in their communities, actively demonstrating what it means to be a great man, every day.” The company says it remains committed to the ideal.
Keep fighting the good fight, Gillette.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of a book on feminist science fiction and editor of a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls.
