[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
With a new controversial ad, Gillette has joined the ranks of Nike, Starbucks, Pepsi and others in an effort to spark a storm of controversy in social media and the like. Gillette's 1:48 video, titled "We believe: the best men can be", Addresses the issue of toxic masculinity, bullying, badual harbadment and other forms of misbehavior brought to light in the #MeToo era. Unsurprisingly, the ad was hailed and rewarded. In a world where nuances are lost in the midst of rancor, it's worth looking closely at what Gillette did well and what he may have missed.
Like all brands, Gillette operates in a market characterized by a perfect storm of trends designed to make life difficult for brand owners. Consumers lost confidence in all major institutions – government, media and businesses. A generalized fear invades the daily life of the public, characterized by concerns about health care, income and security. A divided society accentuates the emotional anxiety of these problems.
Faced with this malaise, consumers are turning more and more to the private sector to play a role in improving society. Echoing this sentiment, Blackrock CEO Larry Fink sent his annual letter Leaders recently responded, "The world needs your leadership." More brands have responded to these calls: Patagonia protested against Trump's decree on the elimination of the public park, Nike expressed support Colin Kaepernick and Levi's and Dick's have taken a stand on gun safety.
To delve into these sensitive issues involves both risks and benefits. Some succeed, with Nike recording a significant increase in sales as a result of Kaepernick's advertising. Others fail painfully, as in the unfortunate case of Pepsi where Kendall Jenner stops a riot with a can of soda. What gets lost in the mix of condemnation praise, is the nuance of what makes the difference between success and failure.
I've studied the phenomenon of brands facing this difficult environment for my book, Marketing to the #FakeNews era: New rules for a new reality of tribalism, activism and loss of confidence. After talking to marketing managers and public relations experts and examining a wide range of brands, I developed a framework for organizations to determine if and how they should engage in some of the most important issues. delicate of society.
Typically, senior executives are faced with a binary choice: putting their head in the sand, or bogging down on one leg and declaring a highly controversial point of view meant to offend half of the country. There is actually a range of choices for the brands that I define in what I call the Brand Relevance Risk Curve. This diagram represents a series of postures that increase the likelihood of resonance with consumers who agree with the brand's opinion and also increase the risk of backtracking from those who do not agree .
Curve Risk / Relevance of the brandPeter Horst
The most conservative posture is what I'm calling Values. Although there is not a single correct choice for all brands, every organization should at least embrace this step. In this mode, the brand chooses not to publicly express a point of view, but goes through the introspective process of defining its values and beliefs and inculcating them in the organization. Once done, society can act with a common moral compbad and be ready to act quickly if events beyond their control force them to take a public position. Organizations often retreat their heads in sand posture, so that they do not even define their own values and simply hope that all this will go away. This leaves the mark & nbsp; likely to be caught unprepared by the crisis and may suffer reputational damage – just ask the NFL.
A more proactive choice is Goal. We now know very well the notion of higher-purpose brands such as Dove and True Beauty, or Always and Trust in Young Girls. The goal tends to be positive, commendable and generally non-controversial. It is unlikely that consumers will storm the doors of Unilever with forks on behalf of Fake Beauty.
What I call a more daring step Problems, where a brand addresses a subject that is inherently more subject to tension, more current and more likely to generate strong feelings – but without taking sides for one or the other point. Examples include Heineken the lack of civil dialogue with society or Frito-Lay on LGBTQ adolescent suicide.
The most challenging and risky posture is Positionwhere a mark sets out a clear argument for or against with the certainty that many will strongly oppose its point of view. It is IBM that supports the "Dreamers" during the debate on DACA and McKinsey who terminates his contract with ICE to protest the immigration policies of the Trump administration.
When it comes to badessing the wisdom or the madness of Gillette's advertising, let's start by asking if they had permission from the brand to engage in the subject. As a male product with a long slogan "The best a man can get", I think it's relevant enough to recognize and address male behavior issues.
The question is how do they approach problems – and where the risk-relevance curve is useful. I would say that Gillette has adopted a Position when he created the boogeyman with a smirk, allowing rude men to appeal for better behavior. Gillette declared herself opposed to her transgressions. It was this portrayal of the villain that actually generated the furious reaction – and thus caused many of them to miss the valuable and valuable point the brand was trying to make. Even the most energetic critics do not disagree with the general desire for positive male role models.
Contrast Gillette with Always Opting For A Problems the posture in his agitation and very popular campaign this has highlighted how girls lose confidence in their adolescence. Always focused on the problem without dramatizing a villain to oppose – there were no demoralizing teachers nor discouraging parents against whom to fight. I do not believe that this leads to a loss of clarity or visceral power, but rather that one focuses on the positive aspects of their message and eliminates the elements that could divert attention from the debate by inviting peripheral debate.
Gillette could have achieved the desired impact without the negative feedback by focusing on Position. This is not an argument for "unraveling" Gillette's thesis or diluting her intentions. I think instead that Gillette's example illustrates the potential impacts of the nuanced choices that brands must make when they address the big issues of the day. Choice of Nike Position in Kaepernick, advertising was an integral part of the value of the brand she sought to fuel with her urban youth target. Choice of IBM Position in DACA, the debate was central. Heineken has launched a powerful call for civil dialogue with a Problems I think Gillette would have been well served to do the same.
">
With a new controversial ad, Gillette has joined the ranks of Nike, Starbucks, Pepsi and others in an effort to spark a storm of controversy in social media and the like. Gillette's 1:48 video, titled "We Believe: The Best Men Possible", discusses the issue of toxic masculinity, bullying, badual harbadment, and other forms of misbehavior brought to light at the time of #MeToo. Unsurprisingly, the ad was hailed and rewarded. In a world where nuances are lost in the midst of rancor, it's worth looking closely at what Gillette did well and what he may have missed.
Like all brands, Gillette operates in a market characterized by a perfect storm of trends designed to make life difficult for brand owners. Consumers lost confidence in all major institutions – government, media and businesses. A generalized fear invades the daily life of the public, characterized by concerns about health care, income and security. A divided society accentuates the emotional anxiety of these problems.
Faced with this malaise, consumers are turning more and more to the private sector to play a role in improving society. Echoing this sentiment, Blackrock CEO Larry Fink recently sent his annual letter to global CEOs: "The world needs your leadership." More and more brands have responded to these calls: Patagonia protesting against Trump's order eliminating public parks, Nike expressing support for Colin Kaepernick and Levi's and Dick take a stand on gun safety.
To delve into these sensitive issues involves both risks and benefits. Some succeed, with Nike recording a significant increase in sales as a result of Kaepernick's advertising. Others fail painfully, as in the unfortunate case of Pepsi where Kendall Jenner stops a riot with a can of soda. What gets lost in the mix of condemnation praise, is the nuance of what makes the difference between success and failure.
I've studied the phenomenon of brands facing this difficult environment for my book, Marketing to the #FakeNews era: New rules for a new reality of tribalism, activism and loss of trust. After talking to marketing managers and public relations experts and examining a wide range of brands, I developed a framework for organizations to determine if and how they should engage in some of the most important issues. delicate of society.
Typically, senior executives are faced with a binary choice: putting their head in the sand, or bogging down on one leg and declaring a highly controversial point of view meant to offend half of the country. There is actually a range of choices for the brands that I define in what I call the Brand Relevance Risk Curve. This diagram represents a series of postures that increase the likelihood of resonance with consumers who agree with the brand's opinion and also increase the risk of backtracking from those who do not agree .
Curve Risk / Relevance of the brandPeter Horst
The most conservative posture is what I'm calling Values. Although there is not a single correct choice for all brands, every organization should at least embrace this step. In this mode, the brand chooses not to publicly express a point of view, but goes through the introspective process of defining its values and beliefs and inculcating them in the organization. Once done, society can act with a common moral compbad and be ready to act quickly if events beyond their control force them to take a public position. Organizations often retreat their heads in sand posture, so that they do not even define their own values and simply hope that all this will go away. This leaves the mark vulnerable to not being caught off guard by the crisis and risking damage to the reputation – just ask the NFL.
A more proactive choice is Goal. We now know very well the notion of higher-purpose brands such as Dove and True Beauty, or Always and Trust in Young Girls. The goal tends to be positive, commendable and generally non-controversial. It is unlikely that consumers will storm the doors of Unilever with forks on behalf of Fake Beauty.
What I call a more daring step Problems, where a brand addresses a subject that is inherently more subject to tension, more current and more likely to generate strong feelings – but without taking sides for one or the other point. Heineken speaking on the lack of civil dialogue in society or Frito-Lay on LGBTQ teen suicide.
The most challenging and risky posture is Positionwhere a mark sets out a clear argument for or against with the certainty that many will strongly oppose its point of view. It is IBM that supports the "Dreamers" during the debate on DACA and McKinsey who terminates his contract with ICE to protest the immigration policies of the Trump administration.
When it comes to badessing the wisdom or the madness of Gillette's advertising, let's start by asking if they had permission from the brand to engage in the subject. As a male product with a long slogan "The best a man can get", I think it's relevant enough to recognize and address male behavior issues.
The question is how do they approach problems – and where the risk-relevance curve is useful. I would say that Gillette has adopted a Position when he created the boogeyman with a smirk, allowing rude men to appeal for better behavior. Gillette declared herself opposed to her transgressions. It was this portrayal of the villain that actually generated the furious reaction – and thus caused many of them to miss the valuable and valuable point the brand was trying to make. Even the most energetic critics do not disagree with the general desire for positive male role models.
Contrast Gillette with Always Opting For A Problems posture in her moving and highly praised campaign that has highlighted how young girls are losing confidence in their adolescence. Always focused on the problem without dramatizing a villain to oppose – there were no demoralizing teachers nor discouraging parents against whom to fight. I do not believe that this leads to a loss of clarity or visceral power, but rather that we focus on the positive aspects of their message and eliminate the elements that can divert attention from the debate by inviting a peripheral debate.
Gillette could have achieved the desired impact without the negative feedback by focusing on Position. This is not an argument for "unraveling" Gillette's thesis or diluting her intentions. I think instead that Gillette's example illustrates the potential impacts of the nuanced choices that brands must make when they address the big issues of the day. Choice of Nike Position in Kaepernick, advertising was an integral part of the value of the brand she sought to fuel with her urban youth target. Choice of IBM Position in DACA, the debate was central. Heineken has launched a powerful call for civil dialogue with a Problems I think Gillette would have been well served to do the same.
