Gillette (pictured above) produces advertisements which promote feminist attitudes, however they continue to charge more for women’s razors, which contradicts the messages they are attempting to spread (courtesy of SirWiseOwl/Creative commons).
In a Sept. 8 article from The New York Times, opinion writer Tiffany Hsu discusses the changing nature of advertising for popular men’s products. As the title “Underwear Ads Lose the Macho: How Marketing Has Embraced Real Men” suggests, this article is a celebration of new advertising that defies masculine stereotypes to be more realistic and inclusive.
These commercials depict progressive attitudes, but their underlying motive is still to convince the viewer to buy a product. By latching onto a social movement to do so, some corporations seek to profit off the attitude of change instead of contributing to it.
Hsu discusses in her article that Gillette, an American brand for personal care products, released a commercial earlier this year “...that was critical of toxic male behaviors like brawling, bullying, catcalling and mansplaining,” according to The New York Times. This culminated in asking the viewers, “Is this the best a man can get?”
Though the commercial seemed sincere and concerned with valid and constructive subject matter, it has been the subject of a great deal of backlash because of Gillette’s status in the economic and social environment.
Charlie Moore, writer for Daily Mail Australia, discussed how Gillette consistently charges more in price for women’s products than for men’s products. In discussing price discrepancies, Moore said, “A Gillette Fusion [men’s] razor with five blades costs $14, while the Gillette Venus [women’s] razor with five blades costs $17, a 21 percent markup,” according to The Daily Mail. This trend remains true across Gillette’s entire line of products.
This showcases Gillette’s hopes to profit off progressive social expectations instead of responding to the way their own methodology upsets those expectations. The price of Gillette women’s razors remains higher than those for men, and instead of remedying the situation by making changes to product marketing and pricing, which might result in lower profits, Gillette has chosen to focus on improving their own apparent image without improving their internal standards.
Opponents to the Gillette commercial, and others like it, claim that these ads for men’s products are not targeted toward men, but are rather made to appeal to a female perspective. Lisa Wade, a sociologist Hsu quoted in her discussion of the topic, said that advertising depicting positive social change and progressivism is “what women are craving right now … because of their uniquely exploited and objectified status in American Society.” Likewise, Wade points out that of all consumers “women do much of the spending on such products,” and are therefore likely to have their interests represented in advertisements like Gillette’s.
By directing progressive commercials for men’s products toward female consumers, this advertising tactic is meant to convince the viewer that Gillette has begun with a new mindset. Upon deeper analysis, however, instead of making the price of men’s and women’s products equal, Gillette fears lost profits and responds with commercials made to feel like reform is underway when the exact opposite is true; Gillette is attempting to manipulate the consumer to sustain profits and delay change.
Despite the misbehavior of larger corporations like Gillette, companies like Schick and Dollar Shave Club have adopted Gillette’s message-based model of advertising and coupled it with gender-neutral products to perpetuate notions of positivity, individualism and change. Though Gillette and similar corporate companies remain stagnant, open-minded competitors like these have begun to shift toward a future where equality and acceptance are the market norms.
Anthony Lyon is a junior English major who - believe it or not - loves to read and write.