Dana Mathewson

One can't help but wonder how and why the decision was made to adopt an advertising campaign that was virtually guaranteed to alienate a large share of the company's customers. Power Line's John Hinderaker quotes, and comments on, an article from Glenn Reynolds, who suggests that perhaps the company is more interested in pleasing its officers -- who are also Leftists -- than its customers.

The Gillette anti-men ad that I wrote about here continues to spark controversy. Most in the advertising industry seem to think it was marvelous. This raises interesting questions: Why, exactly, do companies wade into the culture wars? Especially when they join a side that is either a minority or, at best, a bare majority? How does this make sense? Glenn Reynolds notes:

Adweek pronounced Gehrig’s group libel the "Ad of the Week.” Gehrig’s efforts were also recognized by Best Ads on TV.

Glenn’s comment is spot on, and explains much of what we see from our debilitated institutions:

This is another example of how the people running American institutions now tend to perform for an audience of their peers rather than focus on doing their jobs.

Doing their jobs, and serving their alleged constituencies. Like men who need to shave.

Here's the link to the Power Line article, which of course has the link to the Reynolds article: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/gillette-follow-up-why-did-they-do-it.php

BTW: The link given for the Reynolds article about just gets you to Instapundit. There is an article about the Gillette ad at that site, posted by Glenn Reynolds but written by Helen Smith, found here: https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/the-gillette-ad-the-war-on-men-is-a-war-on-trump/

Hide Comments | Add Comment