Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

The Best an Ad Can Get?

1/26/2019

32 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

When I was growing up, our family had a small, easily-provoked dog.  He was responsible for holes in many pairs of my socks from times I tried to slip past him while he was in an especially protective mood.  The person he guarded was my mother because she made sure he had food.  Our dog knew better than to ‘bite the hand that fed him.’   I wonder, was our pet smarter than one of the world’s leading consumer products companies?
 
If you haven’t seen it, Gillette, the global purveyor of men’s personal care products, recently released a video ad titled “We Believe: The Best a Man Can Be.”  The 1:49 minute commercial doesn’t push razors, rather it’s an image-building ad that renounces two contemptable behaviors that some men commit: sexual harassment and bullying.
 
The ad showcases an array of mainly scripted clips in which males, some old, some young, enact a variety of despicable acts like groping women and punching their peers.  Meanwhile, a chorus of other men chants a unison refrain of rationalization, “Boys will be boys.”
 
The ad’s narration and text overlays provide corrective commentary:
“We believe in the best in men.”
“It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more that we can get closer to our best.”
“We are taking action at thebestmencanbe.org”
 
In many ways, Gillette’s messaging makes sense.  The company has taken a stand against two terribly wrong and destructive behaviors and called out the men who commit them.  Using a powerful quote from actor-turned-sexual-harassment-activist Terry Crews, the ad also encourages every man not to stand idly by when they see such reprehensible actions but to intervene: “Men need to hold other men accountable.”
 
Despite all the apparent good, the commercial has quickly become a lightning rod for controversy.  Dozens of media, from Advertising Age, to Glamour, to USA Today, have run articles about the ad.  As one might imagine, some commentary from the authors as well as from the general public has been positive, while other responses have been quite negative.
 
For instance, @pstdavid_ tweeted, “Finally got a chance to see this #GilletteAd. Quite honestly, I don’t get what all the fuss is about. In my opinion, they’re not “taking a stand on toxic masculinity” or ‘stealing your manhood.’  All they’re suggesting is that you be a decent human being. It’s not that difficult.”
 
Another Gillette consumer, however, tweeted a picture of his hand poised above a trash can, about to discard the Gillette razor he received on his 18th birthday and used for the past 15 years, including through basic training and four deployments. (1)  The soon-to-be-former customer lamented, “since @Gillette thinks I’m a bad person, I’m throwing it away.”
 
Another user, @davidliedtka, took an even more extreme approach, placing his Gillette shaving creme and razor in an oven and setting the temperature to 505 degrees.
 
Wow.  Those are strong reactions.  Does Gillette or any organization that’s trying to right serious social wrongs deserve such reprisals?
 
The first time I saw the commercial, my reaction was generally positive: A strong brand that has built a solid reputation among millions of men was using that influence to ask them to be better.  Such a plea from a huge corporate player might stand a chance of making a difference in our world.  Still, there were things about the spot that didn’t seem right.
 
A second time through the ad, I noticed more of the agency’s specific creative decisions.  For instance, while the spot’s small amount of real video footage worked, the many acted segments looked overly artificial and contrived, even though they depicted terrible events that unfortunately occur.  The use of both real and scripted video seemed like a mismatch.
                                                    
I hadn’t thought much more about the ad, until one of my marketing students emailed me a link to another company’s commercial that was purportedly a response to Gillette’s ad.  The next day he asked if I had watched the ad.  I had been very busy, so I replied I hadn’t but I was looking forward to seeing it soon.
 
That night I opened his email and clicked the YouTube link, which took me to an ad posted by Egard Watch Company.  Viewing the 1:57 minute commercial just once, changed my perspective of Gillette’s ad.
 
Egard’s commercial opens with several male firefighters battling an inferno, then quickly cuts to one of them carrying a young girl safely away from the flames.  Meanwhile, a narrator asks, “What is a man?”  The ad continues with a wide variety of real video clips, many showing men doing very difficult or even dangerous physical labor, while the narrator poses additional questions like “Is a man brave?”, “Is a man a protector?”, and “Is a man disposable?”
 
The spot also shares some very sobering statistics, such as:
  • Men account for 93% of workplace fatalities.
  • Men comprise over 97% of war fatalities.
  • 79% of all homicide victims are male.
  • Men account for 80% of  all suicide victims.
 
The commercial concludes on a positive note, asking “Is a man trying?” and offering the company’s view of masculinity:  “We see the good in men.”
 
As marketer, I realize that the right music with moving images can tug at one’s emotions; however, Egard’s ad resonated with me, and perhaps the 324,000 people who have liked, it for another reason.  Egard reminded us of the many men in our lives that we have known and loved.
 
The ad caused me to remember my grandfathers: one a coalminer, the other a farmer.  To support their families, both  did very hard, physical work that must have greatly tested both their bodies and their minds.  Having experienced the ravages of WW II, my father-in-law, emigrated from Ukraine, to Brazil, to the United States, where he worked for over 30 years in a bearing factory as a tool and die maker—labor that likely explains his great loss of hearing today.  My own father was not able to finish high school, yet he started his own business at age 25 and worked tirelessly with my mother to earn enough to put four children through college.
 
None of these men were/is perfect.  Neither is their grandson/son—I’ve made plenty of mistakes; although, I don’t think I’ve done anything that someone could call bullying or sexual harassment.  Most men probably can say the same.  Most of the mistakes we make are not because we’re men; they’re because we’re human.
 
The problem with Gillette’s ad is that it stereotypes men.  Not all males act like Harvey Weinstein or ‘Scott Farkus,’ the bully from A Christmas Story.  In fact, the vast majority do not.  Of course, Gillette’s ad doesn’t directly say that all men are sexual predators or bullies, but it does put all men in the same stereotypical boxes through some subtle visual and verbal suggestions.
 
One such insinuation in Gillette’s spot is the seemingly infinite lineup of men, all standing behind their BBQ grills with arms folded, chanting in unison, “Boys will be boys.”  The ad’s narration also makes a stereotypical suggestion by tagging onto Crew’s “Men need to hold other men accountable” quote, adding: “ . . . accountable to act the right way; some already are, in ways big and small.  But some is not enough.”  I’d like to reiterate the belief that it’s most men who are acting the right way, not some.
 
Another Twitter user, Melissa Chen (@MsMelChen), who self-identifies as Asian, supports the suggestion that Gillette’s ad stereotypes men.  She says:
“I can get behind the message that we all can be better.  But the #GilletteAd ended up painting an entire demographic with a negative stereotype perpetuated by a few.  Imagine the uproar if it was an ad about a racial group with higher crime rates saying, “‘you can be better.’”
 
Of course, on top of all this analysis is the fact that men are Gillette’s main target market.*  Its iconic tagline is “The Best a Man Can Get.”  Given that our family’s dog knew better than to bite the hand that fed him, it’s hard to imagine why one of the world’s biggest brands would want to risk ‘cutting the faces it shaves,’ especially when already on the ropes in a fight against Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club.
 
One instance of bullying or one case of sexual harassment is one too many.  As such, Gillette can be commended for taking a stand against those injustices and for suggesting that others do the same.  However, the company should have known much better than to unfairly throw its entire target market under the bus with broadly generalized talk of “toxic masculinity.”  It’s wrong to degrade others in any way, including by negatively stereotyping, which makes Gillette guilty of “Mindless Marketing.”

*An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Gillette does not make products for women.


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
32 Comments

It's About a <<Fiji Water>> Girl

1/12/2019

18 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Have you ever been photobombed?  Friends and family often have fun slyly inserting themselves into each other’s pictures.  Sometimes it’s a complete stranger who appears in the background of a vacation photo, smiling for the camera.  People are used to those kinds of photobombs, but do A-list celebrities expect such interlopers on the red carpet of a major awards show?
 
Fiji Water Girl, perhaps the most famous photobomber ever, rose to global prominence in Beverly Hills, just this past weekend.  Like other award programs, the Golden Globes features a preshow red carpet event during which the many talented people of television and film stroll in front of the media while slowing making their way into the Beverly Hilton Hotel.
 
The promenade of stars in elegant evening gowns and stylish tuxedos provides countless photo opportunities that the celebrities graciously accommodate.  This time, however, as many of them posed for the paparazzi, the same, solitary figure appeared behind them: Fiji Water Girl.  Her intriguing presence in the background of so many popular celebrities’ pictures ignited a social media firestorm—Who is that girl and how did she get in the images of all those icons?
 
For each Golden Globe awards, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) selects a small number of companies to be
“awards sponsors,” which means they help underwrite the cost of the program, and in return, they are permitted a demure presence at the event that includes sharing their prestige products with the program’s distinguished guests.  This year’s awards sponsors were Moët & Chandon Champagne, Lavazza Coffee, Lindt Chocolates, and, of course, Fiji Water.

Fiji outfitted several young, attractive women in matching royal blue gowns, and positioned them on the red carpet, holding clear trays of the firm’s trademark bottles.  Ostensibly, the idea was that thirsty guests would avail themselves of the product samples, appreciate the refreshment, and gain a positive impression of the brand.  However, one particular model,
Kelleth Cuthbert, used some strategic photobombing to parlay her gig into so much more.
 
As mentioned above, Cuthbert somehow managed to place herself in the background of photos of a variety of top celebrities including Jim Carrey, Idris Elba, Judy Greer, Eric Lange, and Tony Shalhoub, often making “direct – and sultry – eye contact with the camera.”  Social media shares of the pics quickly made Fiji Water Girl one of the web’s hottest trending topics and, according to Apex Marketing, earned Fiji about $12 million in free media exposure.
 
So, the $12 million question is:  Was Cuthbert’s photobombing serendipitous, or was it planned?
 
Fiji seemed surprised by all the attention, suggesting that although it appreciated the extra exposure, it hadn’t tried to orchestrate it.  The company tweeted: "We're so glad everyone is talking about our water!  *senses ominous presence*  She's right behind us, isn't she? #FIJIwatergirl.”
 
It’s also worth noting that of the several Fiji Water girls stationed on the red carpet at the Globes, Cuthbert was the only one whose presence went viral.  If Fiji truly had been trying to gain mass media attention, wouldn’t more of its models have been found photobombing celebs?
 
All the above makes it seem like Cuthbert may have ‘gone rogue’ and taken up the photobombing herself.  Since her meteoric  rise to stardom, the model has had several opportunities to address such claims.  She’s often suggested that her presence in so many celebrities’ pics was unplanned, for instance:
 
“There’s tons of photographers everywhere. It doesn’t matter where you stand, you’re in the crossfire of every shot.”
 
“No matter where you move, you’re in somebody’s shot. I don’t know, you just have to look at what you’re doing and be aware of where everyone is. But know that you can’t avoid it.”
 
“I don’t even think there was a point where I made any conscious decision [to lean into the photography]. I think from so many years of modeling, when I hear a shutter, I just kind of give a face.”
 
On the other hand, Cuthbert told a Los Angeles times reporter that “It’s all strategic” and “You’ve got to angle.”  She also hasn’t shied away from the cameras since the Golden Globes, appearing on Inside Edition to describe her photobombing experience, taping her own mock award acceptance speech for YouTube, and making a cameo on the Late Show with James Corden.
 
Not having been there or spoken with Cuthbert, it’s hard to evaluate her somewhat conflicting statements and other disparate evidence.  One person who was at the last Golden Globes and has many years of experience with paparazzi is accomplished film actress  Jamie Lee Curtis .  She expressed clear and strong sentiments about what happened to her on the red carpet:
 
“I specifically moved away from the blatant promotions by Fiji and Moet where young women with their trays filled with their wares stood near a designated camera. I knew why there was a photographer poised there and I moved away as I said out loud that I didn’t want to be doing advertising for either. Clearly this angle shows that I moved from her being behind me and yet from the side it still happens. The sponsors of events need to get permission from people when they get them to take their picture next to products.”
 
Some may suggest that Curtis overreacted to what occurred or was too cynical to think sponsors try to stage such photo ops.  However, Business Insider has corroborated her claims, reporting that a specific Fiji-commissioned photographer was the initiator of the photobombing strategy.
 
Stefanie Keenan, the photographer contracted through Getty Images, was at the Golden Globes for the purpose of taking photos that would “elevate” Fiji, which mainly meant getting pictures of celebrities drinking the water.  Cooler temperatures, however, led few stars to take the samples, so, according to Getty’s vice president of global entertainment Kirstin Benson, Keenan “came up with the idea to have a Fiji brand ambassador creep in to some shots.”
 
This revelation certainly supports Curtis’s experience, while contradicting many of the things that Cuthbert said.  It seems, then, that the photobombing was the collaborative effort of Keenan and Cuthbert.  Fiji corporate also bears responsibility in as much as it contracted with the companies that provided the photographer and the model.
 
But even if the photobombing was intentional, is there anything wrong with it?  As mentioned at the outset of this article, it’s often funny when people photobomb others.  That photobombing takes on a different meaning, though, when the pictures are used for commercial purposes. 
 
As Curtis suggested, people, whether celebrities or ordinary citizens, have the right to choose the companies they support.  You probably wouldn’t want your likeness associated with an organization whose mission you don’t endorse.  You also wouldn’t want a company to profit from the use of your image without your consent.
 
However, that’s how Fiji unfairly benefited from the photobombing.  Although the company undoubtedly paid for the privilege of being one of the few Golden Globe awards sponsors, it didn’t secure permission from or provide payment to Jamie Lee Curtis, Jim Carey, or other celebrities whose personal brands it co-opted without their consent.
 
Some may say that no one would assume Curtis endorses Fiji Water just because a model bearing the firm’s bottles appears behind her in a picture.  A lack of an express endorsement is certainly significant; however, simply showing Curtis and Fiji together starts to establish a connection in people’s minds, especially when the picture keeps reappearing.  Branding often leverages such repeat associations, as when a brand uses the same colors and fonts.
 
Cuthbert’s ‘performance’ on the red carpet at the Golden Globes made her and Fiji Water viral stars.  They owe that celebrity status, however, to the real stars whose painstakingly-developed personal brands Fiji and company commandeered.  Hopefully photobombing people with commercial content won’t catch on, as it’s clearly a picture of “Single-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
18 Comments
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly