In January of this year Gillette launched a campaign about “toxic masculinity”. At this point I am sure there are very few people who have not heard about this. Gillette is not the first corporation to stand behind a social issue or seen this type of up rising from doing so. One example that readily comes to mind is the 2012 Oreo Pride cookie, but is the juice worth the squeeze?
Looking at Proctor and Gamble bottom line;
Even after taking a stand on “toxic masculinity” Proctor and Gamble, who own Gillette, have not felt the outcry for a boycott. Their stocks have actually gone up at the end of this month.
Comparing these stocks to Unilever, large competitor in the shaving market, who’s stock have not seen the same love as Proctor and Gamble. When looking at the bottom lines it does not seem like this was a bad move for Proctor and Gamble. They have managed to raise their stock while, according to social media, offending thousands of people.
So why would a corporation decide to take a stand on a social issue that has nothing to do with their product? Is it the profits that follow by having your name out there or do people actually say one thing and do another? Would they have seen the same profits and notoriety if they had taken the high road and shamed the throat beard?
These are all the questions that plague me when looking at what people are saying but seeing what people are doing. It seems to me that standing behind an issue that has nothing to do with your product may be a good way to get some free press and sales.
Gillette: Not the First Company to Cause a Nick. Is taking a stand on social issues worth the backlash on social media? https://bit.ly/2CUOEqK#tocicmasculinity
Looking at why would a company would risk social media backlash by taking a stand on a social issue, that has nothing to do with their product. Wondering if “toxic masculinity” was worth if for Gillette? Gillette: Not the First Company to Cause a Nick.