Gillette: Not the First Company to Cause a Nick

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?

Oreo Pride Facebook Campaign

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.

Market Graph for Proctor and Gamble

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.

Market Graph for Unilever

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.

Twitter post:

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

Facebook post:

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.

2 thoughts on “Gillette: Not the First Company to Cause a Nick

  1. I think Gillette did an amazing job on this campaign and I can see how their stocks have gone up. With everything going on in the world, it’s nice to see a brand standing behind a social issue in hopes to create change. A brand with strong, positive beliefs that may help change even just one person from doing the wrong thing, is a brand I can get behind and in turn buy products from. Thanks for sharing.

    • Thanks for the comment. I too appreciate what they did with campaign and I am glad that they did not “pay” for it. Hopefully this will encourage other corporations to try and use their clout for positive influences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.