No, you destroy their lands, steal their wealth and enslave them instead
Yeah I'm sure my working class ancestors from Yorkshire did all that
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
Yeah I'm sure my working class ancestors from Yorkshire did all that
Well, it was at least attributed to something, yours was just a claim thus the quesiton. I'm still baffled by your ranting but there we go...
Associate
Heheh, oh dear boys - come on, let's play nicely...! There does appear to be a lot of ranting!
So firstly, can we agree to avoid quoting the Gillette's marketing team in question or Gillette's CFO directly - especially articles dating from the start of 2019 (ie as they're obviously biased and obviously not longitudinal enough for any financial impact analysis)
Secondly, there's also plenty of links already posted to show that a) Gillette's sales have been declining and b) there was a drop after the ad campaign.
It appears some are even struggling to get this far, so there's little point discussing the part I found interesting - so ignore below if you're not there yet....!
The discussion I had was of course a verbal discussion at a very interesting event in London which covered data used in marketing (some amazingly clever data science work) - Gillette came up as a topic and this director knew all about it and the fallout within Gillette. What I did find very interesting was how she described brand loyalty and how Gillette were an interesting case study as they defied a lot of the traditional marketing data points. For example, if you've used a brand for 30 years, most marketers would expect to see tremendous brand loyalty after that time and you're pretty 'sticky', however the short is that Gillette is a brand that guys just really don't care about - so as is being alluded to above, I guess you might have used Gillette for more than 30 years, but you have no particular loyalty and if you moved to Wilkinson Sword, then you really don't care.
This is important as a learning for Gillette as they thought based on their previous understanding that customers were much more loyal (eg 70% of our customers have used us for more than X years, therefore we can push the boundary a bit with our ad campaign).
The opposite was also given for Banks BTW - ie they have terrible experiences, brands and so on, yet exceptionally 'sticky' customers - eg if Tesla did an RBS, then they'd have zero customers, yet RBS really didn't decline in a huge way, nor does HSBC with its money laundering, Barclays with its fossil fuels etc etc
Anyway, don't claim this is any peer-reviewed journal entry (although was a very credible expert who'd been speaking at the event), just thought it was interesting and made me think.
So firstly, can we agree to avoid quoting the Gillette's marketing team in question or Gillette's CFO directly - especially articles dating from the start of 2019 (ie as they're obviously biased and obviously not longitudinal enough for any financial impact analysis)
Secondly, there's also plenty of links already posted to show that a) Gillette's sales have been declining and b) there was a drop after the ad campaign.
It appears some are even struggling to get this far, so there's little point discussing the part I found interesting - so ignore below if you're not there yet....!
The discussion I had was of course a verbal discussion at a very interesting event in London which covered data used in marketing (some amazingly clever data science work) - Gillette came up as a topic and this director knew all about it and the fallout within Gillette. What I did find very interesting was how she described brand loyalty and how Gillette were an interesting case study as they defied a lot of the traditional marketing data points. For example, if you've used a brand for 30 years, most marketers would expect to see tremendous brand loyalty after that time and you're pretty 'sticky', however the short is that Gillette is a brand that guys just really don't care about - so as is being alluded to above, I guess you might have used Gillette for more than 30 years, but you have no particular loyalty and if you moved to Wilkinson Sword, then you really don't care.
This is important as a learning for Gillette as they thought based on their previous understanding that customers were much more loyal (eg 70% of our customers have used us for more than X years, therefore we can push the boundary a bit with our ad campaign).
The opposite was also given for Banks BTW - ie they have terrible experiences, brands and so on, yet exceptionally 'sticky' customers - eg if Tesla did an RBS, then they'd have zero customers, yet RBS really didn't decline in a huge way, nor does HSBC with its money laundering, Barclays with its fossil fuels etc etc
Anyway, don't claim this is any peer-reviewed journal entry (although was a very credible expert who'd been speaking at the event), just thought it was interesting and made me think.
No, they got outraged by the woke message.
Associate
Whilst there was some 'outrage' - I think for the bigger segment in their lost sales/branding the reality is:
a) no one really cares about the Gillette brand that much anyway
b) shavers are pretty much completely homogenous, so no real feature benefit
c) Gillette produced an ad that was just annoying/mildly condescending/negative towards guys
d) they shrugged and bought Wilkinson, Harrys etc
Not really. The only people that seem to have changed their buying habits are the usual suspects, like whimper87.
Most people just shrugged and got on with it, some others got upset and changed their ongoing held habits based on insecure delicateness.
Last edited:
Associate
Sorry, I don't know who whimper87 is, but assume you're not basing a multi-billion pound brand sales on one person in a forum!?
I was referring to the published sales figures...? Clearly a lot of people have changed their buying habits, regardless of how you attribute.
Although statistically, it could be whimper87 has stopped buying several hundred million razors each year...
Sorry, I don't know who whimper87 is, but assume you're not basing a multi-billion pound brand sales on one person in a forum!?
I was referring to the published sales figures...? Clearly a lot of people have changed their buying habits, regardless of how you attribute.
Although statistically, it could be whimper87 has stopped buying several hundred million razors each year...
Maybe some did, but not the majority, mainly losers who took it personally.
What you haven't measured is the additional brand loyalty they've gained. I for example was thinking of changing brands on a cost basis, but I've kept using Gillette because I admire the fact they upset losers.
Soldato
I don't watch soccer lol. Sometimes worldcup, but not for a few years.
Associate
Well my husband's one of your unstatistically substantiated losers then??
I don't understand your gripe on this - most people operate this way, ie if I see a company operating not inline with my values, of course I'll opt with my feet - especially when it's as insignificant a decision as a meaningless razor!
I haven't measured any of this - just citing reports online, the companies financial reporting and views of experts out of interest - I don't know much about marketing, but I know that brand loyalty attribution died in the nineties, hence any sort of mention of it has dropped off balance sheets/P&Ls of major firms, so not sure why I'd want to measure that when companies themselves treat it as a 'dodgy currency'... nor how it helps your own anecdote...?!
Some interesting points on Gillette I personally found the ad pretty preachy and patronizing in the delivery. The message I can get behind but the ad was terrible. Until you think a little deeper on the why.
Consider the time the metoo movement was in full swing men where being accused companies being called out for misogynistic policies. Can you think of a company that's been associated with typical toxic masculinity for the last 30 years and objectifying women in it's ads. Not only objectifying but also price discriminating them.
So this was a piece of corporate risk management to avoid getting called out on previous ads and policy. In that case it worked people talk about the company being woke rather than toxic from that point of view it was money well spent
Consider the time the metoo movement was in full swing men where being accused companies being called out for misogynistic policies. Can you think of a company that's been associated with typical toxic masculinity for the last 30 years and objectifying women in it's ads. Not only objectifying but also price discriminating them.
So this was a piece of corporate risk management to avoid getting called out on previous ads and policy. In that case it worked people talk about the company being woke rather than toxic from that point of view it was money well spent
Last edited:
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 26,193
Perhaps it's because hispters/lefies don't shave and the far-right do?
Associate
Excellent point and observation - although I wonder if it's corporate risk gone bad - I can see them plotting exactly what you meant and hoping to shift brand perception so people just forget the old - much like Lucozade famously dropped the granny's medicine brand image and became the 'sports' drink. But it does appear to have backfired somewhat - marketing week summarised it here:
Mark Ritson: Gillette’s new ad will be the year’s worst marketing move
Gillette’s purpose-driven attempt to revitalise its slogan, ‘The best a man can get’, isn’t just a waste of ad budget but an expensive exercise in destroying its dominant market share.
www.marketingweek.com
Associate
Heheheh! I can't say I know, but surely we should expect some neo-nazi advert next if that's the case!
/vomits in mouth
Associate
You are hilarious DLockers and yes Roar87, I like to debate these things, I love hearing other folks perspectives!
Last edited:
- Status