Is This the Best An Ad Can Get?

Men’s razor company Gillette sparked controversy recently after releasing a promotional video taking a progressive stance on the issue of toxic masculinity. The advertisement illustrates the consequences of male aggression and sexual harassment, and calls on the men of today to ditch excuses like “boys will be boys” and instead shut down such reprehensible behavior in order to set a better example for the men of tomorrow.

Unsurprisingly, this message was not well received with older and more conservative demographics: conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter rebuked the company’s choice, and nearly two-thirds of baby-boomers said they are less likely to purchase a Gillette product after viewing the ad. On the other hand, a majority of millennials and members of Gen-Z have said the ad increased the likelihood that they would buy from Gillette. Prominent liberal figures, like Martin Luther King’s daughter Bernice King and CNN commentator Keith Boykin, have also shown public support for Gillette’s message.

But despite the excitement from both sides of the political spectrum, this endeavor is not parent company Procter and Gamble’s first rodeo in ‘woke’ advertising. This multinational conglomerate is also behind the #LikeAGirl campaign for Always, where young girls are encouraged to be confident in their own abilities, and the “All Strong Hair Is Beautiful” campaign for Pantene, which sought to expand the representation of African Americans in hair product commercials. Procter and Gamble is not the only corporation recently taking a stronger, more public stance on progressive issues, though. Two years ago, in the face of President Trump’s inauguration and anti-immigration rhetoric, a Super Bowl commercial from Budweiser featured the story of the company’s cofounder enduring prejudice upon immigrating to the United States. And in September of last year, Nike stood in solidarity with NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s divisive decision to kneel in peaceful protest during pre-game national anthems, much to the pyromaniacal dissatisfaction of some of the company’s more conservative customers.

The woke advertising trend extends back much farther than these recent efforts, however. For decades, cigarette manufacturers would craft advertisements with progressive and feminist themes to attract new demographics. As early as 1933, an advertisement from the cigarette company Chesterfield reads, “Women began to smoke [when] they began to vote”; in 1968, a Liggett and Myers cigarette ad depicts a smoking woman ignoring a man with the line, “Never interrupt an L&M smoker”; and in 1991, a Virginia Slims ad celebrates the increasing financial independence of women with the catchphrase, “You’ve come a long way, baby.” These efforts were extremely successful, as consumption of cigarettes by women began increasing in the 60s and 70s. However, success for cigarette companies quickly translated to suffering for the women being targeted by these ads: as tobacco consumption increased, women’s rates of lung cancer and emphysema began to rise as well.

Nevertheless, the sentiments in these cigarette companies’ advertising campaigns were indeed progressive: women should celebrate their right to vote; they shouldn’t submit to interrupting men; they should be proud of their financial independence. But ‘progressive’ is not the same as ‘genuine’: if these companies truly cared about women’s wellbeing, they would have told them to stay as far away from cigarettes as possible.[su_pullquote align=”right”]It is technically possible that Gillette is genuinely tackling the issue of toxic masculinity while also actively engaging in child labor, but it seems unlikely.[/su_pullquote]

We shouldn’t be fooled again.

While a razor is not as directly dangerous as a cigarette, corporate monolith Procter and Gamble has participated in some nefarious and illiberal activities. The Guardian reports that, in 2011, the European Union fined the company over 200 million euros for price fixing, a practice in which corporations collude to maintain a specific price and thus deprive the consumer of the advantages of a competitive, free market. In 2016, Amnesty International discovered that Procter and Gamble profits off of palm oil industries with abusive practices including child labor, hazardous work conditions, and underpay of employees.

It is technically possible that Gillette is genuinely tackling the issue of toxic masculinity while also actively engaging in child labor, but it seems unlikely. What seems more likely is that this corporation, like the ones who marketed cigarettes to women, is trying to profit off of the popularity of progressive politics. And, of course, I’d prefer any world in which progressive ideas—even those with phony underlying intentions—enter traditional media. The message in the advertisement is a good one, and we are allowed to support it independent of the industry’s more unfortunate practices. But while we cherish a progressive shift in traditional media, we must also remember that this shift is more likely a surreptitious appropriation of social trends than a genuine passion for social justice.

Daniel A. Berkovich ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at dberkovich@wustl.edu.