Field than on it. Nikes message to customers is more inspiring than accusatory. It doesnt ask them to examine their role in the structures of society that can cause oppression, let alone the roles played by corporations like Nike. By skipping that part, they jump straight to the solution of the program, not the problem itself. Gillettes campaign, by comparison, is more onerous. Sure, sometimes people deserve to be blamed. But brands dont have the moral authority that a church or a family or a group of seniors can exercise by telling people that they are living by the wrong.
Values and that they should change their ways. A brand should work for its customers, not the other way around. On their website TheBestaManCanBe, why they felt the company had an obligation to raise the issue Its time ukraine telegram number to acknowledge that brands, as an organization, have a role to play in influencing culture. And as a company that empowers men to be their best selves, we have a responsibility to make sure were promoting positive, achievable, relatable, and healthy ideas about what it means to be a man. This seems incredibly selfindulgent on Gillettes part. Compared.
To most personal care products, razor marketing tends to focus on the positive attributes of the product rather than engaging you with the intangibles of what does the razor tell us about this? Gillette tells men they have the best razors with the right number of blades, and people including me Im a Gillette customer buy them because they expect a closer, smoother, less irritating shave than the competition can provide. If I were going to pick a Procter Gamble brand built around a particular image of masculinity that needs to be adapted in the MeToo era, Id start with.