Gillette’s 2019 campaign: an apology and answers sought

1. Three generations of trust

Testimony | Ashley Peverett

My grandfather used Gillette. My father used Gillette. So did I.

“The best a man can get.”

I used to reach for that brand with aspirational pride. It meant heritage and legacy. A connection to the men before me and the man I wanted to become.

Now I walk past it on the shelf and feel sad, betrayed and angry.

The razors are still there. The pride is gone.

The 2019 campaign made me feel judged simply for being a man. I had not sexually assaulted anyone. I had not harassed anyone. I did not condone bullying. Yet a brand I loved and respected left me feeling that I was part of the problem.

What had I done to deserve that?

I took it personally because it was personal. For me, this was an emotional betrayal.

I stopped buying Gillette.

When its leadership described alienating customers as a “price worth paying”, I recognised myself in that calculation. My family’s loyalty had become something the company was prepared to lose. Reporting on Gary Coombe’s defence

Evidence limit

Ashley describes his own experience and decision to stop buying. Purchase records were not supplied. Gillette should disclose customer retention and loss data so the commercial consequences can be examined.

2. What Gillette said and showed

Documented evidence

The film placed bullying, sexual harassment and excuses for misconduct alongside a challenge to Gillette’s familiar slogan. It also showed men intervening and setting good examples. Its narration included: “Some already are, in ways big and small. But some is not enough.” Contemporary coverage and transcript

The good men in the film matter. It would be inaccurate to say that every man shown was a wrongdoer, or that the script literally declared every man bad.

Atlas assessment

An advert communicates through the overall picture it creates. Showing some decent men does not automatically answer a customer who feels the wider message puts his sex under suspicion.

Gillette addressed men as a group through a corrective message about misconduct by some men. Atlas believes that framing gave customers like Ashley reasonable grounds to feel accused. Atlas regards this as a form of collective shaming. The criticism does not depend on the script literally declaring every man guilty.

A man can agree that abuse is wrong and still ask: why are you speaking to me as though I need this lesson?

Men do not inherit guilt from other men. A father caring for his children, a young man finding his feet or a customer buying razors should not have to defend himself against an accusation supplied by association.

Gillette and its agency described the campaign as a way to give its slogan new meaning and generate discussion about being a man. That establishes a deliberate cultural ambition. It does not settle whether the execution respected the people being addressed. Grey/WPP’s campaign account

3. Imagine the reverse

Atlas assessment | A hypothetical comparison

Imagine a woman buying the same sanitary-pad brand her mother used. She trusts it with something personal.

Then the brand runs an advert showing women humiliating partners, bullying others and behaving aggressively. It presents those acts as a lesson for women and asks whether this is the best women can be.

She has done none of those things. Why is her trusted brand speaking to her as though she needs correcting?

When women object, the company points to a general-public survey, including men, showing approval.

Would that answer the women who felt insulted? Would approval from people who never bought the product make their hurt irrelevant?

No. Nor would misconduct by some women justify treating women collectively as though they required correction. Men deserve that same consideration.

The comparison tests how we treat an audience. It does not predict how women or men would answer such a survey, or assume every viewer would interpret either advert alike.

The question is whether we recognise the injury consistently. If a woman could reasonably feel betrayed by that imagined campaign, a man’s hurt should not be dismissed merely because the real campaign concerned men.

4. Who developed and approved the campaign?

Documented evidence

Kim Gehrig directed the film. Grey developed the campaign. Gillette commissioned and released it.

Gehrig’s outlook is relevant to examining the choice. Her earlier work included female-centred campaigns and an exploration of masculinity from a female perspective. However, she also discussed concern for male suicide and understanding young men’s pressures before the Gillette controversy. That is material evidence against reducing her position to hatred. 2018 interview

Her work on This Girl Can and Man on the Moon also predates Gillette. The latter sympathetically portrays a lonely older man. Career interview

In a later interview, Gehrig said Grey’s men conceived, wrote and edited the Gillette work, and that the final edit and voiceover were outside her control. Responsibility should therefore follow the documented roles. She should not be described as the sole author of the message. Gehrig’s account

Reporting links her selection to Free the Bid. P&G had committed to including at least one woman director in triple-bid production processes. That introduces sex into consideration of the shortlist; it does not establish that men were barred or that the commission had to go to a woman. Selection reporting · P&G’s 2018 commitment

Open questions

Who selected her, what treatments competed, what criteria were applied, and who approved the final portrayal? No original selection scores, complete shortlist or sex-exclusive advertisement was obtained. This file makes no finding of unlawful discrimination.

Atlas directs its apology request to the company and its leadership. It does not seek a personal apology from Gehrig.

5. Why did Gillette take this direction?

Documented evidence and Atlas assessment

Coombe described a business facing cheaper competitors, subscription models and less clean shaving. He said Gillette was losing its connection with millennials and becoming their fathers’ brand. Younger employees pressed for change, and he believed a dramatic transformation was necessary. Coombe’s July 2019 lecture, pages 5–6

There are two decisions to examine. Did the brand need to change? And was this the right message to choose?

Gillette could have a sound case for reaching younger buyers without establishing that this particular portrayal was the best way to do it. Why not celebrate men’s courage, care, friendship or fatherhood? What evidence favoured an approach that existing customers could experience as an accusation?

Gillette described focus groups, home interviews and online surveys in which men expressed a desire to become better versions of themselves. The underlying questionnaire, sampling and results were not obtained in this review. Gillette’s explanation to WIRED

Wanting to improve is not consent to being shamed. Supporting equality is not endorsement of every campaign carrying that label. Gillette needs to explain the step between the audience insight and the creative decision.

6. What the surveys actually measured

Documented evidence | Published research results

Several studies reported favourable reactions. They must be presented accurately, including findings that do not support Atlas’s criticism.

Sources: Perksy findings reported by Forbes · Ace Metrix’s release · Morning Consult’s report

Forbes reported that these studies were not commissioned by P&G. Perksy’s full questionnaire, weighting and male subgroup size were not obtained. Morning Consult’s linked detailed tables were inaccessible in this review. Its reported overall margin of error was two percentage points; that should not automatically be applied to smaller subgroups.

Marketing Week separately reported a claim that 76% of millennial men were more likely to purchase. The original table behind that exact figure has not been identified. It must remain attributed, not substituted for Perksy’s different 77% measure. Management’s reported figures

These reaction studies followed the campaign’s launch. They could inform its defence or continuation; they do not establish what evidence supported the original decision.

7. Who did you ask—and were they your customers?

Atlas assessment and open questions

A public-opinion survey answers a different question from a study of paying customers.

An overall approval figure that combines men and women cannot establish how male customers, considered separately, experienced the campaign. Even the men-only figures do not establish the response of existing male purchasers unless customer status was checked.

Respondents of either sex should not be described as customers merely because they answered a survey. Research among potential buyers can be useful. Gillette still needs to show what happened to the people already buying its products.

General-public approval and existing-customer response answer different questions.

For Gillette, the missing breakdown is straightforward:

• Existing male customers: reaction, previous spending, subsequent purchases and retention.
• Other existing purchasers: the same measures, reported separately.
• Prospective customers: whether favourable responses became first purchases and repeat business.
• Age groups: their shares of customer numbers, revenue and profit before and after the campaign.

This review has not found a verified 2019 percentage for younger men’s share of Gillette’s customer base, sales or profit. Gillette’s market share among young men is a different measure from young men’s share of Gillette’s business.

The published surveys do not answer these questions. Gillette should publish the customer research underpinning its defence, including findings about existing male customers.

Approval is not a purchase. A purchase is not necessarily a lasting customer. And a new customer does not automatically replace the value of one lost.

8. Management knew customers were angry

Documented evidence

Coombe’s lecture records board concerns, shareholders contacting the company and crisis meetings. He considered taking the film down before deciding to keep it. He also claimed subsequent online growth and improving results. These are management’s accounts, not an independently isolated measurement of the advert’s effect. Lecture, pages 7–9

Source note | “Price worth paying”

Speaker: Gary Coombe, then leading Gillette / P&G Grooming. Source: Molly Fleming, Marketing Week, 29 July 2019. The accessible opening attributes the exact phrase “price worth paying” to Coombe when discussing angering some consumers. It explains the proposed return as greater relevance among younger consumers and recovery of falling market share. Original report

That context matters: he offered a commercial justification for accepting alienation. The phrase was not a declaration that an $8 billion campaign loss was acceptable. The full interview is subscription-restricted, and this file relies on the accessible passage. “I would do it again” remains an unverified paraphrase and is not quoted as his words.

At P&G’s October 2019 annual meeting, shareholders challenged the campaign and customer alienation. Chairman and CEO David Taylor defended it, pointing to relevance, favourable responses and subsequent growth. He presented the decision as building the business. Annual-meeting transcript

Atlas assessment

Atlas challenges whether that defence accounted for the people who left. P&G should disclose how it assessed their loss and justify the decision to accept it.

When a customer says, “You have insulted me, and I will not buy again,” pointing to someone else’s approval does not address his complaint. Calling the loss worthwhile makes an explanation more necessary, not less.

9. The board and the shareholders

Documented evidence

The relevant parent-company board was P&G’s. In 2019, David Taylor was Chairman and CEO, W. James McNerney Jr. was lead independent director, and Angela Braly chaired Governance & Public Responsibility. That committee’s responsibilities included protecting corporate reputation. 2019 proxy statement

The remaining directors at the January launch were Francis Blake, Amy Chang, Kenneth Chenault, Scott Cook, Joseph Jimenez, Terry Lundgren, Nelson Peltz, Margaret Whitman and Patricia Woertz. Chenault retired in February. Christine McCarthy was a later nominee, not a launch-time director. The same proxy records these distinctions.

Board awareness is established by Coombe’s account. Pre-launch approval by the full board, individual votes and the precise response to its concerns remain unverified.

Atlas assessment and open questions

If management spends company money on a contested social message and knowingly risks customer loyalty, it should explain the business case, the alternatives and the risk assessment. P&G should explain the board’s oversight of the decision and subsequent controversy.

P&G’s leadership should disclose the evidence behind its claimed commercial judgment, the alternatives considered, the approval process and how it accounted for customers who felt insulted or left.

The questions are what management proposed, what risk was assessed, what the board examined and who accepted responsibility when customers objected.

Today, Shailesh Jejurikar is P&G’s Chairman and CEO. Joseph Jimenez is lead independent director and also served in 2019. Juliana Azevedo leads Grooming, including Gillette. Current leaders can address the company’s record without being described as the original decision-makers. Board appointments · Azevedo’s role

10. What the financial figures do—and do not—show

Documented evidence | Financial results

P&G’s Grooming division reported the following for the year ending June 2019:

These cover a broader division and a financial year spanning months before and after launch. Currency movements materially affected reported sales. They do not isolate a boycott’s effect. The impairment discussed below was recorded in Corporate, not the Grooming segment’s earnings. 2019 annual report

P&G also recorded an $8 billion after-tax impairment associated with Gillette Shave Care. It reduced the accounting value of goodwill and brand assets, citing currency devaluations, reduced shaving and competition. It was not a verified $8 billion advertising loss or a measurement of stock-market value erased by the campaign. Results announcement

A separate advertising test reported lower purchase intent for the campaign than for Gillette’s logo alone, with worse results among men. Its published account gives inconsistent sample counts and does not measure transactions. It is contrary evidence worth recording, not proof of a particular financial loss. Test findings

Ashley’s boycott is a reported lost customer. The total number, value and duration of similar losses remain unestablished. Neither favourable polls nor aggregate sales figures settle the net return attributable to the campaign.

11. What did Gillette set out to achieve for men?

Documented evidence and open questions

Gillette identifies a three-year partnership with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America as part of its wider work. That activity should be assessed on its merits. Gillette’s programme account

The first question is what success meant before the campaign began. What social objective did P&G set? What change did it expect, among whom, and by when? What measures and follow-up did it put in place?

If the objective was discussion or awareness, assess those outcomes. If it was changed behaviour, identify the behaviour and show the evidence. If it was better support for boys, distinguish what the funded programmes delivered from what the advert itself achieved.

This review has not identified an independent evaluation showing that the film reduced harassment, assault or bullying. P&G should publish the campaign’s actual objectives and the evidence of results against them.

What alternatives did it consider? Could the same support for boys have accompanied a campaign that made existing customers feel proud? Good intentions do not establish that this approach achieved its intended outcomes or justified its costs.

12. Why Atlas believes this matters beyond razors

Atlas assessment

Ashley’s concern is that a trusted men’s brand helped legitimise treating men as fair game for collective shame. This is a cultural assessment, not a measured finding that one advert caused a wider social trend.

The concern deserves a hearing. When a brand associated with male pride adopts a corrective tone, some men hear that their identity itself requires an apology. If their objections are then dismissed as resistance to becoming better, they are caught in a trap: feeling unfairly accused becomes another reason to judge them.

Men can support equality and object to that treatment. They can condemn misconduct without accepting suspicion based on sex. They can ask to be heard without proving that everyone else felt the same.

Majority approval does not settle fairness. A profitable campaign would not settle it either. Men’s dignity deserves consideration even where leadership believes a different message will sell more products.

13. What we want: an apology to men

Remedy sought

Juliana Azevedo and P&G’s board, let’s discuss an apology to men.

Acknowledge that the campaign left customers like Ashley feeling collectively judged for behaviour they had not committed. Apologise for the part Gillette’s own communication played in that hurt and the damage to their trust.

Say plainly that an intended challenge to harmful behaviour did not justify communicating in a way that left decent customers feeling answerable for other men’s conduct. The company can acknowledge that impact without claiming every man reacted alike or admitting an intention to insult.

Atlas seeks an explicit apology. Wording we would ask Gillette to consider is:

“We intended to challenge harmful behaviour. We recognise that our campaign also left some longstanding male customers feeling judged simply for being men. We apologise for the hurt and damage to trust our message caused those customers. We should have taken greater care in how we spoke to you.”

That is proposed wording, not a statement Gillette has made. It takes responsibility for the communication rather than making the customer’s sensitivity the problem.

Explain how Gillette intends to rebuild the relationship. That should include listening directly to existing and former male customers, examining how future campaigns portray men, and reporting their responses separately from general-public approval.

Atlas does not ask Gillette to abandon opposition to harassment or bullying. It asks the company to pursue those aims while respecting men and avoiding collective reproach.

14. Three questions behind the apology request

Open questions | Customer evidence, decisions and outcomes

Alongside the apology, Atlas asks P&G to answer three primary questions:

1. What did your existing male customers tell you? Publish the relevant pre-launch and post-launch research, separating existing purchasers from non-customers. Include questions, fieldwork dates, subgroup sizes, weighting and results by sex and age.
2. Why did you choose this message? Explain the alternatives tested, the criteria for selecting this execution and the evidence that justified accepting the risk of alienation.
3. What happened to the business of those customers? Provide the evidence available to P&G concerning changes in acquisition, retention, repeat purchasing, spending and relevant brand measures among male customers. Explain the evidence connecting those changes to the campaign and how gains were weighed against losses.

Director selection, final approval and the board’s response to concerns belong in the second answer. Defined social objectives and their results should be supplied alongside the commercial outcomes, as set out in section 11.

Commercially sensitive records can be addressed through sufficiently detailed summaries or independent assurance. A general statement about positive sentiment does not answer these questions.

Public record and scope

This case file has not been sent directly to P&G. No response deadline has been set, and no silence is characterised as refusal. Atlas invites evidence, corrections and a substantive response, to be assessed alongside the findings under its Evidence Standard.

Two supplied peer reviews assessed the argument and handling of evidence; neither independently verified external sources. Sources have been checked in preparing this file, with inaccessible material and unresolved questions identified above. Those editorial checks are not an independent audit.

The record brings together Ashley’s testimony, documented statements and results, Atlas’s assessment and questions for P&G. Leadership should answer those questions with the selection and approval records, customer research and commercial evidence identified above.

The razors are still on the shelf. The pride I once felt reaching for them is gone.