Why?
Do you ever wonder why some corporations do “dumb stuff”? How do you explain Gillette’s decision to attack virile men, surely part of their loyal customer demographic?
It is a given that Gillette was facing stiff competition from Harry’s and Dollar Shave, among others, before it launched its new campaign. Their 56% market share was already shrinking; now that loss is accelerating.
What were the Gillette senior management team and agency thinking?
This follows a decision last year by Dick’s Sporting Goods to stop selling AR-15 rifles and all guns to anyone under the age of 21. Dick’s has lost market share in selling hunting guns as a result and may discontinue sales of all guns this year.
Did Dick’s expect to see its sale of hunting guns and gear decline markedly?
In each case these two American corporate titans either allowed the CEO’s politics or the politics-of-the-moment to cloud their judgment.
We know our culture is always changing, but embracing a divisive issue is foolish (and damaging) unless a company is positioned to withstand pushback and serious customer slippage.
Some CEO’s mistakenly believe consumers will reward them for demonstrating their commitment to being a “good corporate citizen” by participating in the cultural and political wars. Ask the CEO of Progressive Insurance how much business it lost by campaigning openly for the election of John Kerry in 2004.
Most consumers do not buy a product because the manufacturer supports a political or cultural cause. Corporate good works are part of being a good corporate citizen, but supporting a political or cultural cause of the moment does not fit into that basket, plus it is rife with risk.
One age-old absolute is as true now as it ever was. Damaging the company brand is a whole lot easier (and quicker) than building greater brand strength which will increase sales and profits. Gillette and Dick’s are living the results of a self-destructive advertising campaign.
Tune-in next week for an analysis of Nike.
Jonathan Gehris
Branding, Marketin