The Historical Dominance of Gillette #
- Revolutionary Business Model: King Camp Gillette invented the safety razor in 1901, pioneering the "razor and blades" model (cheap handles, expensive disposable blades).
- Military Integration: World War I solidified the brand's dominance as the US military issued Gillette razors to every soldier.
- Market Leadership: By the early 2000s, Gillette controlled 70% of the global market and could price products 35% higher than competitors.
- Acquisition: Procter & Gamble (P&G) purchased Gillette in 2005 for $57 billion, the largest acquisition in P&G history.
Market Pressures and the Rise of Disruptors #
- Declining Market Share: Between 2015 and 2018, market share dropped from 70% to 54%, and grooming revenue fell by 26%.
- Cultural Shifts: Shaving frequency declined due to the popularity of beards and facial hair grooming.
- Direct-to-Consumer Threat: Startups like Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s disrupted the market with lower prices, viral marketing, and subscription-based delivery.
- Price Wars: Gillette slashed prices by 12% in 2017 to fight competitors, but failed to regain momentum or appeal to younger generations.
The "The Best Men Can Be" Campaign #
- Social Activism Context: Following Nike’s Kaepernick campaign and the #MeToo movement, Gillette sought to align with progressive social issues.
- Creative Strategy: The agency Grey New York flipped the "Best a Man Can Get" tagline to "The Best Men Can Be" to address "toxic masculinity."
- Filmmaking Choice: Gillette hired Kim Gehrig, known for female-empowerment campaigns, to direct the message toward men.
- Corporate Commitment: The brand pledged $3 million to nonprofits like the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to support its new positioning.
The Backlash and Public Response #
- Immediate Outcry: The 2019 ad featured scenes of bullying and sexual harassment, leading to 400,000 dislikes within 48 hours.
- Customer Retaliation: The hashtag #BoycottGillette trended worldwide; customers posted videos of themselves discarding products.
- Accusatory Tone: Critics argued the ad spent too much time focusing on negative male behavior, making loyal customers feel lectured or insulted.
- Virtue Signaling: High-profile figures like Piers Morgan labeled the campaign "absurd virtue signaling," claiming it alienated the brand's core demographic.
Financial Fallout and Brand Devaluation #
- The $8 Billion Writedown: Six months after the ad, P&G announced an $8 billion impairment charge on the Gillette brand.
- Sales Decline: Grooming segment sales fell by $352 million in a single year (2018 to 2019).
- Loss of Share: Gillette’s global blade and razor share dropped from 65% to 60% as customers moved to rivals like Schick, Dollar Shave Club, and Harry’s.
- Continuing Losses: A second writedown of $1.3 billion was announced in 2023, bringing the total loss in brand value to over $9 billion.
Executive Defense and Strategic Retreat #
- "A Price Worth Paying": Grooming CEO Gary Coombe defended the campaign, stating that alienating a minority was necessary to make the majority "fall in love" with the brand.
- Awareness vs. Conversion: While digital engagement spiked, surveys showed 77% felt "hopeful" but only 34% felt moved to actually purchase the product.
- Pivot to "Local Heroes": By late 2019, Gillette quietly shifted its marketing back to traditional themes, focusing on firefighters and personal trainers rather than social lectures.
Summary #
Gillette’s attempt to modernize its brand through a social justice-themed advertisement backfired significantly, contributing to a cumulative $9.3 billion loss in brand value. While the company intended to attract younger, progressive consumers, it inadvertently insulted its core customer base by focusing on negative male stereotypes. This case study highlights three critical marketing failures: targeting an audience that doesn't buy the product (women and activists), confusing utilitarian products (razors) with lifestyle statements (sneakers), and lecturing existing customers rather than inspiring them. The result was a dramatic loss in market share and one of the most expensive marketing lessons in business history.
last updated: