As a kid growing up in the Bible Belt, I often heard about Donald Wildmon and National Federation for Decency (later the American Family Association). The organization was constantly organizing boycotts of products or companies they thought promoted un-Christian values. His Campaign for Decency targeted, among other things, the TV shows MASH, Three’s Company and Charlie’s Angels, the film The Last Temptation of Christ, Blockbuster Video, Disney, Johnson and Johnson, Proctor and Gamble, Walmart, Madonna and basically every fell influence he could think of. While it had some early success — getting Sears to pull its ads from a few shows — eventually companies figured out that they could just ignore him. For all his claims of representing an army of millions of Christians ready to destroy whatever company he set his sites on, it was all talk. The boycotts, such as they were, never had an impact on anything. The organization is still out there, mainly ranting and raving into the void about homosexuality. But they are mostly irrelevant (the odd McDonald’s spineless surrender not-withstanding).
I tend to be skeptical of boycotts. Mass boycotts organized for political reasons can work — e.g., the boycotts of South Africa or the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott. But they only work when they are narrowly focused, supported by a well-organized community and sustained for a period of time. But random boycotts of random products that trip the sensitivities of professional ninnies and are organized via hashtag never work. Whether it’s conservatives boycotting Hamilton because the cast said something to Pence or liberals boycotting Chick-Fil-A because of the founder’s anti-LGBT actions, nothing ever comes of them. And nothing ever will because the vast majority of people do not go through life evaluating every economic transaction through some ersatz political-moral scale.
I was thinking about that this morning after this news exploded into my Twitter feed.
Gillette's controversial marketing campaign targeted at the #MeToo movement cost the company $8 billion.
Still, its CEO says he does not regret a thing.
It's "a price worth paying" he said. https://t.co/HxbqItTSuw
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) August 2, 2019
You may remember the The Best Men Can Be ad from January. I’d forgotten it until this morning. Some people praised it for bringing attention to toxic masculinity. Other people heaped scorn on it for condescending wokism. But most people, including me, just shrugged it off.
So did this ad destroy Gillette’s brand? Did they really lose $8 billion as a result of it?
No.
Here is Reuters write up of the $8 billion “loss”:
P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year, P&G’s net income was $1.89 billion, or 72 cents per share.
Cincinnati-based P&G, which operates in 80 countries, sells Gillette razors, gels and foams worldwide and said the write-down was due primarily to currency fluctuations – enduring strength in the U.S. economy in recent years has strengthened the dollar. The charge was also driven by more competition over the past three years and a shrinking market for blades and razors as consumers in developed markets shave less frequently. Net sales in the grooming business, which includes Gillette, have declined in 11 out of the last 12 quarters.
P&G bought the Gillette brand in 2005 or a whopping $57 billion. At that time, it was the top shaving product company in the world. But it has lost much of that lofty position over the last 15 years, with an 11% decline in sales over the last five years alone. This is because of cheaper competition from companies like Dollar Shave Club and the growing social acceptance of facial hair overall.
Because the company is now worth less than they paid for it, P&G went ahead and took the paper loss. The paper write-off did not surprise anyone. In fact, P&G’s stock has been rising steadily for the last year and a half and will probably continue to rise.
Nor is there any indications sales have plunged. Here is an article from January, addressing the effect the ad was having on sales:
Though the fiscal quarter for which P&G reported ended before the launch of Gillette’s “The Best Men Can Be” campaign, there has been no hit to sales thus far in light of the social media storm the ad spark. The commercial called on men to embrace a new kind of masculinity, a message well received by many but seen as an unnecessary scolding by others. But as with other controversies involving a major brand—think Nike with Colin Kaerpernick last year or Starbucks and gun safety a few years ago—noise and threats of boycotts haven’t translated into a hit to sales.
“Retail sales trends are in line with pre-campaign levels,” Moeller said, and the CFO pointed to “unprecedented” levels of media coverage and consumer engagement.
Here is an update from today:
“Grooming continues to be a very attractive business — organic sales up year over year,” CFO Jon Moeller told analysts on the conference call.
In its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings report, the company said Gillette has consistently generated “significant” earnings and cash flow and continues to be a strategic business with growth opportunities. Last year, Gillette sold $6.22 billion of men’s razors and blades and $1.28 billion of women’s razors and blades worldwide, according to Euromonitor data.
Note that last figure. Gillette barely had $8 billion in sales for the entirety of 2018. In order for the ad to have “cost” them $8 billion in the first half of 2019, their sales would have to drop 200%.
In short, there is no evidence that the ad had any impact on Gillette’s sales, either positive or negative. The brand was already in trouble and, if anything, the Best Men ad was the sign of a formerly dominant company trying to desperately get their market share back with an attention-grabbing ad campaign.
We in the blogosphere or Twittersphere tend to wildly overestimate the impact of Outrages de Jour. A significant chunk of the conservative commentariat is sick of the kind of virtue-signaling the ad represented. And so when they heard about an $8 billion loss, the gleefully leapt on it as evidence of … something.
But it’s not. Boycotts rarely work. And Twittersphere “I’m never buying X ever again!” outrages never work.
Former Gillette CEO Gary Coombe says that there is no evidence that the $5.24 billion loss (or $2.12 per share) had any impact on his decision to spend more time with his family.Report
Gillette’s business model was based on selling cheap razors and expensive replacement blades. This worked until companies like dollar shave club came in as you noticed. What these kind of talking points represent to me is another form of tug of war in the endless battle of negative partisanship.Report
Funny thing, I shave with a variation of the razor pictured, with the old double edged blades and soap and brush, for the very reason that about 30 years ago I got tired of the amazing amount of waste that is disposable razors and cans of shave cream.Report
I use one too, for the same reason. I shave my head with a HeadBlade, because the handle is much better for that kind of work, and since my hair is a lot finer than my beard (and there is a lot less of it), a single HeadBlade cartridge lasts for weeks (I buy a 4 back every 6 months or so).
Plus I have a decent quality electric for keeping things smooth during the week (I use the double edged blade for those times when I’ve let the shave go too long).Report
The sales of BIC razors went up 6.4% from 2018 to 2019. Guess they missed the memo about the shrinking market, or they’re targeting men who can still grow facial hair because they’re not on testosterone blockers. ^_^
BIC 2019 half-year financial report (PDF)
Schick (Edgewell for financial reporting), however, did see declines in the mid single digits in men’s wet shave products, but bigger declines in women’s shaving products.
I’m also really glad I’m not sitting through meetings listening to hours of this:
I think Trump withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan should help sales, since returning soldiers and soldiers who were expecting deployment will start shaving again. A lot of people don’t realize the complex dynamics between our Middle East policies and men’s shaving products, but Bernie or Tulsi will probably bring it up at the next debate.Report
“I think Trump withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan should help sales”
*stares at this comment in wide-eyed disbelief*Report
Haven’t a bunch of Gillette patents expired in the last couple of years? For reasons related to the blade spacing and the open back, their Mach 3 product gives me the best combination of comfortable shaves and long life. My tickle file says that sometime this year I should be checking to see if there are generic versions available that have the same characteristics, but I failed to note why I thought it was the right time.Report
The only Gillette product that I typically buy is dental floss. Thanks to their ads, I’ve gone generic. P&G makes so many products that I knew I wasn’t going to be able to keep them all straight, but I dropped a few. I usually don’t do the boycott thing, and that ad was only mildly annoying. But then they did that ad with the father teaching his daughter how to shave her face, and it just hit me that they’re the ones picking this fight.Report
What “fight” are they picking?Report
Those posted a video where trans people exist and have healthy relationships with those we love. Obviously Gillette is out for blood.
(Portions of this post might be ironic.)Report
They’re not picking a fight and it’s laughable to me to see people taking this woke capitalism crap seriously.
As much as the anti-woke crowd believes it’s for objectivity, rationality, capitalism, etc., it’s amazing how thin-skinned they are when it comes to companies voluntarily making decisions they don’t like and take these decisions as a direct shot against their values.
In that light, the Chicken Little crowd is really nothing more than the same type of right-wing trash grievance politics I’ve seen for well over 30 years now but instead of targeting liberalism or liberals directly they focus their ire on the “woke”.
If the Social Justice crowd is a bunch of snowflakes, then these whiners are full blown blizzards.
Plus, no one on Wall Street or in the business world focusing on corporate earnings give a flying crap about this ad. This is political hackery creating an “enemy” where none exists.Report
What specifically about their ads moved you to eschew their products?Report
I just looked up that ad on youtube. That was delightful and heartwarming and I realize it’s mostly there to manipulate me into buying shaving products (which it won’t since I use a double edge safety razor and no cream).
But thanks for letting me know, I guess I’ll try to remember to buy Crest brand toothpaste next time we run out.
If that’s Gillette “picking a fight” – well, I guess I’m willing to fight whoever it is they’re picking a fight with.Report
On one thread, I’m being told that ESPN is political because everything is political, and anything that doesn’t explicitly oppose the status quo implicitly supports it. On another thread, I see that no one in his right mind could possibly interpret a trans shaving ad as a battleground. I’m not persuaded by either position. As for the former, I find such a definition of politics to be so broad as to be almost meaningless. The one thing it does convey is that everything is a battleground. And the fact is that an ad that could not have existed a few years ago can’t be interpreted as Overton-neutral.
All of us here on this opinion site would like to shift the Overton Window to some degree. It’s silly to pretend otherwise. I can acknowledge that, and even fight to the death for your right to make the effort, but still oppose particular movements you might support. And sometimes companies will support an effort one way or another, whether out of some person’s conviction or out of expected financial benefit. By all means we should continue to debate the specifics. But this coyness about the debate doesn’t accomplish anything.Report
The only question was the series of ads intended to be provocative? If so, I’ll repeat what I said back when we were discussing the Sports Illustrated Burkini issue:
Now if Gillette wasn’t trying to be provocative with its ad campaign, this criticism doesn’t apply.
But they probably should have a talk with someone who is better at giving the greenlight to ads that do better with the whole “this appears to be deliberately provocative when we’re just trying to start a conversation!” thing.Report
Its odd, though, in that the “provocations” here (the burkini, a trans person) aren’t behaviors, but that person’s mere existence.
I wonder how any of us here would react if the powers that be pointed to us and said that they find our existence to be offensive.Report
No, that’s not what the provocation is, Chip.
Remember “Black Lives Matter” and pretending that all it was saying was “hey, Black Lives Matter”?
And then college campuses started having “It’s OK to be White” signs showed up?
It’s like that.
The provocation is in the implied arguments that are perfectly deniable.Report
What is the implied argument with trans people shaving and a burkini?Report
“Your culture is dead, old man.”
That’s an overstatement that leaves out a great deal, but it gets to the gist.
(It’s perfectly deniable, though so if you want to make arguments denying it, I’ll view them through the same lens that I view the arguments explaining that “It’s OK to be White” doesn’t mean anything but whether it’s OK to be White.)Report
You’re only emphasizing my point.
If showing a trans person and burkini means my culture is dead, then my culture rests on the premise that these people must remain invisible.
Again, their very existence is the affront here.Report
So… we’re running with the “how could anyone be offended by someone pointing out that it’s OK to be white” defense?
(And that’s not getting into the whole “that’s not what I said” issue but I suppose it doesn’t matter what I said. It only matters what my implied arguments are… right?)Report
A vital lesson for shit-starters to learn is that you don’t get to pick the kind of shit that starts.Report
Dammit if you guys cannot see the difference between “it’s okay to black/trans/etc.” and “it’s okay to be white” — then fuckit, you’re just jackasses.
It’s about being a hated minority. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. White people are not a hated minority. Trans people and black people are. Messages to uplift hated minorities exist to counteract literal fucking hatred — yet you fuckheads keep stanning for the “it’s okay to be white” crowd, pretending to be oblivious to the underlying message.
We see through you, you fucking bigots.Report
You can’t even talk about the semiotics of “It’s OK to be White” without someone arguing against the hidden meaning of the phrase.
But to mention that other phrases also have semiotics? Ah, for some reason that always results in people getting all wide-eyed and not comprehending that such a thing even exists. “It’s a surface level statement! How could you possibly argue against such a bland and obvious surface level statement?”Report
This comment is all wrong. 1) I’m not one of the powers that be. I’m just a person with opinions. 2) The provocation isn’t anyone’s existence, it’s the promoting of an agenda. In these cases, it’s companies making decisions that potentially go against their bottom line in service of a political agenda. 3) A burkini isn’t a person’s existence; putting it on is a behaviour. Likewise, transitioning is a behaviour.Report
I do get that seeing these people living as they wish to live threatens the old understanding of the “right ordering” of the universe.
At one time the idea of men becoming women seemed bizarre to me, some upside down version of how I understood things to be.
But then again, lots of things are like that, other cultures which seem unfathomably odd to me.
But don’t you think that’s the whole point of liberal democracy, that we strive to give each other as much freedom as we can, and that we struggle to develop a sense of solidarity and kinship with others?Report
So it is a provocation, then?Report
If “your existence infuriates me” is a provocation, then yes.Report
I just pointed out the difference between one’s existence and one’s behaviour. Was I wrong? If so, how?Report
Imagine it was a man wearing a yarmulke, and I said I was offended by his behavior?
A Catholic woman wearing a veil?Report
I’d think your judgment of their behaviour was wrong, and I’d fight to the death for your right to think it and say it. Of course. This isn’t even a question.Report
Right, and no one is saying people are not allowed to be disagree with the wearing of yarmulkes, burkinis or transitioning.
But we are saying that our liberal democracy is made more robust and free by people striving to reduce the amount of offense and trying to become as accommodating of each other as we can possibly be.Report
I’m all about liberal democracy and the marketplace of ideas. I want open debate, the goal of which is truth. And we can talk about that. But since we’re on the subject of existence versus behaviour, and since an hour ago you thought that your religion example would stump me, could we finish that up? Can you tell me where I’m wrong in the distinction I’m making?Report
You mean the distinction between existence and behavior?
I think in this circumstance its a distinction without a difference.
Asking someone to stop wearing a yarmulke or burkini is tantamount to asking them to stop being who they are.
That’s why we talk about the “free expression” of religion, not “free belief”.Report
I’m glad you stated that explicitly, but it seems to me patently false. My existence is not contained by my behaviours or beliefs. I don’t exist as a Catholic or a hetero; I exist as a human, and therefore I have human rights. You can criticize my religion all you want and it doesn’t constitute a denial of my existence. At an extreme case, you may criticize my religion to such an extent that a mob rises up and kills me, but that’s obviously different in kind, not in degree. It would be self-centered to treat every criticism of my beliefs or behaviours as an assault on my existence.Report
Oh sure – to the extent that there are still two sides fighting, it’s a battle ground.
You can define the sides fairly easily by completing the sentence “trans people should ____” in two contradictory ways. Gillette has chosen something along the lines of “… exist in a welcoming society and have the loving support of their families” with that ad.
So if you decide to boycott them because you’re on team contradictory completion of that sentence – well, that’s a choice of sides alright.
If you choose to boycott them because it’s more offensive to you that Gillette said their completion of the sentence out loud Ryan that the other completion of the sentence is real to too many teams people – that is as you say, no different from a choice of sides for the other completion.Report
Arg
… boycott them because it’s more offensive to you that Gillette said their completion of the sentence out loud *than* that the other completion of the sentence is real to too many *trans* people …Report
Eh, by itself, it’d be a fine commercial saying “hey, our razors are for *EVERYBODY* who wants to shave!”
As part of an ad campaign discussing “toxic masculinity”, at best it’s a cynical setting up a defense against losses that were going to happen anyway (“you can’t fire me as CEO just because we suffered massive losses! You’ll be sexist if you do!”) and, at worst, it’s provocative, performative wokeness as an ad campaign that will be defended by pointing out that its critics are awful and there is no evidence that the ad campaign itself resulted in the losses that were, to be sure, inevitable given America’s toxic masculinity problem (that also manifests as beardedness).
Report
” at best it’s a cynical setting up a defense against losses that were going to happen anyway (“you can’t fire me as CEO just because we suffered massive losses! You’ll be sexist if you do!”) ”
Haw. Maybe he should have taken a knee when they played the National Anthem. Or hired some dudes to beat him up.Report
Is stubble in again these days? I can’t keep track.Report
Old man’s faulty recollections:
I have had facial hair for sixty years. Sixty years ago Gillette owned the market with Shick as a minor challenger. Gillette’s main marketing strategy was advertising, and they neglected technology and product development. About 55 years ago, a British company, Wilkerson, came along with stainless steel razor blades which were a lot sharper and lasted longer. Guys started bragging about how many shaves they got from one blade in the same tones as their brags about car horsepower. Cheap disposable razors were developed by BIC. Now, razors are a generic commodity, and I don’t have a brand preference.
If you have a market dominant product, spend as much energy developing the next generation of that product as on marketing. If you don’t, the other guy will.Report
Wilkinson Sword, he says, presumably related to the fortune and desperately hoping to cash in.Report
And now Gillette has flipped back.
I presume this changes no one’s mind about anything.Report