Defending Gillette, or maybe not

Almost exactly 9 years ago, a brand from the P&G stable ran a very cool campaign titled ‘Smell like a man, man’. It showed an attractive African-American man in a towel talking directly to the camera (i.e. ladies watching the commercial) about how Old Spice body wash would make their man smell like the man he portrays. His attitude added to the charm – his persona was described as “wildly smug, cool-cat smooth dude”. The campaign was wildly successful, and it also won a Grand Prix for film at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival. In short, lots of claps and pats on the back.

Fast-forward to the present. Another brand from the P&G stable runs a campaign with the message ‘The Best Men Can Be’. This time, it’s a razor-and-after-shave selling brand that urges men to challenge themselves to do more so that they can get closer to their best. What an awesome, inspiring message! What could possibly go wrong here?

Umm, if you are with me till here, you know how polarising this campaign has been. Maybe there’s no hidden message behind the casting here too – in two different situations, the guys about to harass women being white, and the guys stopping them being black is just coincidence. But this ad made many men uncomfortable, and they are raising all kinds of questions about the ad.

Rather than look at those questions, let’s look at why they should be questioning this campaign at all. The first and most obvious fact is that this ad evoked a reaction. Meaning, it touched a chord somewhere. You could like it, hate it, scowl at it, but you couldn’t ignore it. Maybe it made you feel inspired, threatened, irritated, or simply angry, it means it did a fantastic job. It got your attention and it made you react. Strike one.

Next, is how this ad makes men feel about being a man. Some would feel being reduced to a stereotype. Or feel guilty because it holds them to a higher standard. Some would feel uncomfortable because it urges them to address an issue they have been quiet about, while some others would wonder if they really would have to interfere in a fight to earn the respect of their sons and be their hero. Again, this simply means that it touched upon a relevant, urgent issue that forces the viewer to take a stand. They aren’t just paying attention, they are now emotionally involved. Strike two.

Last, is the significance of the stand that they have taken or will take. It is not going to be an easy decision to make. If they agree with the argument, they have to plead guilty – guilty of being part of a group that has made not just workplaces, but every other place as well, unsafe for women; guilty of allowing, if not propagating a stereotype about men being aggressive, tough, and strong; guilty of asserting their masculinity by objectifying women, feeling entitled to their bodies, being insensitive to their feelings, emotions, and most importantly, consent. On the other hand, if they disagree with the argument, they fear being exactly what they have been accused of for decades – ‘good guys’ being complicit in the stereotyping of men, and harassment of women, even if only by inaction. Now they aren’t just emotionally involved, they are put in a moral dilemma. Strike three.

That a simple ad can do this, is by itself, pretty amazing. But let’s not get carried away. It’s just that this is the first ad that talks about this issue head on. And that too, by a brand that makes products almost exclusively for men. (You had forgotten it makes razors for women too, right?)

So, are justified men in applauding it or booing it?

Which camp is the bigger one? The right one?

What do I know? I am just another advertising guy.

Disclaimer: While I am hardly taking a side, it’s important to point out my employer has P&G’s competitor, Unilever, as one of its biggest clients. Also, that these views are my personal views, and they don’t represent anyone else’s.