case study part 3

Controversial Advertising

Advertising is amongst the essential and most frequently used marketing tool for most, if not all, organizations. In the world full of competition, businesses are striving to be the best they can be in their efforts to maintain high revenues and longevity in the business. Some businesses have gone to greater lengths to design appealing ads just to ensure customer retention as well as attract new customers to try out their products and services. The underlying intention of these ads remains solely to promote sales (Hackley, & Hackley, 2017). However, the number of businesses selling similar products has grown tremendously, causing a change in strategy with promotional material. Other than promoting sales, businesses have also engaged in corporate social responsibility with their ads trying to address the current issues affecting the social well being of individuals. Some of these ads have turned out controversial and have undermined the actual intention that they were meant to serve.

Gillette company was in the spotlight considering a video ad that the company posted last year. The promotional ad was dubbed, 'We believe' with the slogan, 'The best men can be.' The ad was under the company's CSR efforts in supporting the #Me-Too campaign (Taylor, 2019). A campaign that’s against sexual abuse and harassment for all individuals. The ad was also campaigning against toxic masculinity. A lot of controversies arose from the structuring of the ad. Men were portrayed, as individuals who overlook the relatively harsh realities that they encounter in their life and treat them as if it were part of being a man. They pass this to the younger generation as a form of a rite of passage to manhood. The ad later tries to correct this way of life by depicting how best men should act when handling issues, especially when the younger generation is concerned.

The media attacked the ad on the authenticity of the message that was communicated to society. With the mention of toxic masculinity in the ad and justification of actions that amount to it, the ad was criticized by most media (Irishtimes, 2019). The result created the impression of trying to emasculate men and convert them to be women like. Also, according to the media, women were objectified in the ad to act as agents that propel men to toxic masculinity (Taylor, 2019). The ad was depicted as one that disregards the men by measuring toxic masculinity using stereotypes about men. Thus making the ad appear irrelevant and retrogressive to the purpose that it was designed to serve, to campaign against toxic masculinity.

Negative feedback arose from the ad, with most people defending the actions considered as toxic to be the ones that develop a man to be the perfect man the society needs (Smith, 2019). This implies that bullying and mansplaining are appropriate to develop an individual to grow up and take their roles. The ad was also negatively commended for taking part in belittling men and depicting them as individuals who have limited roles (Smith, 2019). According to the ad, men's roles are limited to barbecuing, engaging in fights, and harassing women. The roles of men are diverse, and the activities that only a select few doesn’t count to generalize it to the rest of the individuals.

There was an uproar by various activists and feminists. They all criticized the ad, with each leveling their reasons based on their perspective. For the feminists, criticisms were based on the company's commitment towards the #Me-Too campaigns (Taylor, 2019). The way women were portrayed in the ad undermined the principles of the campaign, and that the company was not doing enough to support women considering products meant for women are relatively expensive than that meant for men. No movements were created in regard to the ad. The backlashes only involved individuals and organizations engaging their disapproval independently and demanding reform.

However, some individuals commended the ad in clearing the toxicity that existed amongst men and was normalized to look like a way of life for men (Smith, 2019). The ad helped expose the challenges that men go through, yet they cannot be able to realize it. Also, the company was commended for taking up a bold move in participating in the campaign against male toxicity (Smith, 2019). The ad was able to identify the problem and depicted ways in which men can still exist in society without going through all the hurdles.

In conclusion, the intention of the ad was misinterpreted by the different forms of media, and the wrong message was conveyed to the intended public. Social media sites were amongst the leading media channels that fueled the wrong impression creating a lot of controversies on the ad. The print media reinforced the information on the opinion polls, thus making a huge debate over the same.

References Hackley, C., & Hackley, R. A. (2017). Advertising and promotion. Sage. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Hackley/publication/292763095_Advertising_and_promotion_Communicating_brands/links/58b9995a45851591c5dad778/Advertising-and-promotion-Communicating-brands.pdf Irishtimes. (2019, January 15). Gillette ad causes uproar with men's rights activists. Retrieved from Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/gillette-ad-causes-uproar-with-men-s-rights-activists-1.3758621 Smith, T. (2019, January 17). Backlash Erupts After Gillette Launches A New #MeToo-Inspired Ad Campaign. Retrieved from npr: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/685976624/backlash-erupts-after-gillette-launches-a-new-metoo-inspired-ad-campaign Taylor, C. (2019, January 15). Why Gillette's New Ad Campaign Is Toxic. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/01/15/why-gillettes-new-ad-campaign-is-toxic/#339ce29f5bc9