An interesting article on Gillette's toxic masculinity ad.
Nut graf, as the J-school losers say:
The use of the term “toxic masculinity” in the ad was a flat out mistake. While only mentioned quickly and briefly, the use of this term, which many men associate with a one-sided critique and stereotype of an entire gender. Regardless of how much some without marketing backgrounds would like to believe that companies taking political stances on is okay, alienating a substantial proportion of the target audience is never a good thing. Michael Jordan’s statement that he did not want to engage in political commentary because “Republicans buy shoes too,” remains wise thinking. Regardless of which political party or group may be alienated, it is simply bad marketing practice to offend significant numbers of your own consumers.
Which is why one never opens a Will Stroock novel and hears about how awful Barry was, or Bill.
Over the course of writing 12 novels, we've learned a lot about advertising. It never occurred to us to attack our audience, even the Russians. The Saudis come off looking pretty damn good in Israel Strikes: War of the Red Sea.
We always ran our campaigns on websites, blogs and in magazines whose readers we felt would like our books. Say, 'Commentary' for Israel Strikes, or 'Military Heritage' for World War 1990. Our pitch: here's what the book is about, and we think you'll like it.
The Gillette 'The Best a Man Can Be' campaign is run by a single white female SJW. We'd rate a her a 'gentleman's 5'*. The BBQ scene is a dead give away, as a feminist trope now is to barge in on the fellas standing around the grill, drinking beer and talking sports and big tits.
To which we respond, 'Hey doll, get me another beer, would ya? And take your time walking away.'
We're not kidding.
*Heh, see what I did there?
