Reception
Upon its introduction, the advertisement received overwhelming criticism on social media while quickly becoming one of the most disliked videos on YouTube. Gillette was applauded by some for addressing current social issues and promoting positive values among men. Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., described the "We Believe" film as being "pro-humanity" and demonstrating that "character can step up to change conditions".[10] At the same time, the advertisement faced criticism and threats of boycotts from critics who said that it emasculated men,[2][3] and who disagreed with its message.[11][12] British journalist and television personality Piers Morgan described the campaign as "a direct consequence of radical feminists" who he said are "driving a war against masculinity".[13]
Regarding their perceived embrace of woke culture and corporate responsibility, Josh Barro of New York magazine compared the ad unfavorably to a recent Nike campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, arguing that Nike's ad was successful since it was "uplifting rather than accusatory", and consistent with Nike's values as representing "bold action — on and off the field". In regards to Gillette's ad, he said "the viewer is likely to ask: Who is Gillette to tell me this? I just came here for razors. And razors barely even feature in Gillette's new campaign." Barro added that the market for razors was different from that of sporting goods", and that consumers "may be less likely to abandon a product because they feel accused by the brand when their emotional relationship to the brand wasn't the point to begin with."[14]
Writing for the National Review, Mona Charen said that despite criticism to the advertisement coming from other conservatives, and what she described as "undercurrents ... that suggested feminist influence", such as toxic masculinity, she found its imagery to not strike her as "a reproof of masculinity per se but rather as a critique of bullying, boorishness, and sexual misconduct", and argued that "by reflexively rushing to defend men in this context, some conservatives have run smack into an irony. Imagining themselves to be men's champions, they are actually defending behavior, like sexual harassment and bullying, that a generation or two ago conservatives were the ones condemning."[3] Journalist Andrew P. Street expressed a similar argument, considering the negative responses to the ad to be "a living document of how desperately society needs things like the [ad]", and that "if your masculinity is THAT threatened by an ad that says we should be nicer then you're doing masculinity wrong."[2]
Anne Kingston of Maclean's felt that Gillette's parent company Procter & Gamble should have instead focused on addressing gender equality within its board, and pink tax and related gender-based price discrimination, concluding by hoping that "by the time both the boys and girls of today grow up, we'll have exposed and shaved away the pernicious inequities in full display on drugstore shelves. Gillette missed its opportunity. Someone smarter won't."[15] Defending the campaign, Procter & Gamble CEO David S. Taylor stated that "the world would be a better place if my board of directors on down is represented by 50% of the women. We sell our products to more than 50% of the women." The Wall Street Journal cited how the company's board of directors has more than twice as many men as it does women.[16] Marketing Week said the ad backfired on the brand and affected sales metrics.[17] In his video "WOKE BRANDS", YouTuber and cultural critic Harry Brewis argued that the advertisement's intention was in fact to generate controversy as a form of outrage marketing.[18]
Critics of the campaign said that the boycott had hurt the company, and this campaign has since been cited as an example of "go woke, go broke".[19]
