CASE 201 / Gillette / P&G / 2019
The Best Men Can Be
A famous line became a question about the conduct a brand should encourage, creating both attention and disagreement.
AI-assisted research and analysis for the SNS Creative Fieldbook; published by SNS Media Tech. No named human reviewer is claimed.
Sources reviewed 2026-11-05
Campaign credits belong to the original creators. They did not write or endorse this analysis.
Credits: Grey for Gillette; WPP’s case study credits the partnership.
Recognition: No formal award claim made in this record.
Launch / edition: 2019. Award years: No award claim.
The problem. The idea. The experience.
Gillette and Grey revisited a decades-old brand line in January 2019. WPP describes the aim as encouraging more positive models of masculinity and acknowledging that advertising itself helps shape expectations. The campaign therefore questioned an asset the brand had long benefited from.
How the idea came to life
The film contrasted bullying, harassment and passive acceptance with moments of intervention and care. Its message concerned behavior rather than razor performance. Gillette’s later official page describes a multi-year platform and local partnerships, including support for Boys & Girls Clubs of America.
How it reached people
The film circulated online and quickly became a subject of news coverage. ITV’s 15 January report documented both praise and criticism. This record uses January 2019 rather than resolving conflicting 13/14 January first-release references through false precision.
Supporting sources: Primary agency-network case study → Contemporary reporting → Primary brand source →
Read the data in context.
The numbers below describe different kinds of outcomes. Their date, scope and reporting source are part of the result.
- Reporting period
- January–February 2019
- Scope
- Campaign film views across unspecified platforms; not unique viewers
- Evidence
- WPP / Grey case study; no platform split or deduplication method supplied
WPP reports 110 million video views and 15 billion impressions across January–February 2019. These are agency-network totals with no deduplication methodology stated on the page. They show reported exposure, not universal approval, changed conduct or incremental sales.
The creative mechanism.
A well-known brand asset is challenged from within rather than replaced with an unrelated cause
Interrogate an asset the brand actually owns
The campaign’s question gains force from a familiar promise. Before adopting a social message, examine what your existing language has implied and whether you are willing to change it. A credible evolution may require acknowledging past limitations. Borrowing a cause without looking at the organization’s own contribution to the problem weakens the connection.
Show the behavior behind the value
The film moves from an abstract ideal toward recognizable acts of intervention. Choose actions that are proportionate, safe and relevant to the audience. Work with qualified partners when the subject involves harassment or violence. Do not reduce a difficult situation to an easy heroic gesture, or imply that watching and sharing the ad is itself sufficient action.
Read criticism by substance, not only sentiment
Negative reactions can include misunderstanding, principled disagreement, trolling or evidence of a real flaw. Separate them before deciding how to respond. Prepare clear explanations and moderation boundaries without treating every critic as malicious. Equally, do not mistake a loud boycott threat for representative purchasing behavior. Qualitative interpretation should accompany any sentiment dashboard.
Connect attention to an accountable commitment
A continuing partner program gives the message something to be evaluated against after the film leaves the news cycle. Specify the contribution, beneficiaries and reporting period. Distinguish promised support from money or services actually delivered. Marketing exposure and community outcomes need separate evidence, and neither automatically settles whether the campaign improved the brand’s business.
The intended behavior loop
- 01Recognize the familiar promise
- 02Consider the question it becomes
- 03Discuss the depicted behavior
- 04Evaluate follow-through over time
Growth job: Reinterpret an established promise → invite specific better behavior → support a longer-term position. This is an interpretation of the mechanism, not an audited attribution model.
A direction to take into the room.
Original editorial interpretation and proposed adaptation. This is a proposed adaptation, not historical campaign execution or a forecast.
The transferable principle
Revisit a recognizable brand promise honestly, then connect the revised meaning to specific, accountable conduct.
Keep these boundaries
Do not use controversy as a substitute for preparation, shame an entire group or claim an ad alone changes harmful behavior.
Turn the lesson into a test.
Illustrative adaptation, not a historical campaign fact
A small-team experiment
A local service business reviews a familiar customer-care promise with staff and publishes one concrete improvement customers can verify.
Build the test
- Invite voluntary staff input without asking for public personal disclosures.
- Choose a measurable service behavior within the business’s control.
- Explain what changed, provide a feedback route and report after a defined period.
Measure the right thing
Compare observed service performance and customer understanding with the prior process; keep publicity counts separate.
Know when to stop
Pause if the promise exceeds operational capacity, staff are exposed to harassment or feedback reveals a harmful unintended effect.
How this reading fits your brief
Start with the useful part.
Best for: Reinterpret an established promise → invite specific better behavior → support a longer-term position
What to adapt: Revisit a recognizable brand promise honestly, then connect the revised meaning to specific, accountable conduct.
Prerequisites: Original creative development; Rights and accessibility review; A defined measurement comparison.
Smaller-team route: A local service business reviews a familiar customer-care promise with staff and publishes one concrete improvement customers can verify. Constraint: Do not use controversy as a substitute for preparation, shame an entire group or claim an ad alone changes harmful behavior.
Budget: Not established by the cited sources. No cost-fit claim is made.
Trade-offs and evidence: Read the limits below before choosing a test. There is no guaranteed reach, sales lift or ROAS.
Questions for your next brief
- Which customer behavior would make asset reinterpretation useful?
- What evidence would separate attention from accountable follow-through?
Sources & further reading.
Brand and award-entry results are attributed claims, not independent causal audits. Source links open the original third-party pages.
- WPP / Grey: The Best Men Can Be →Primary agency-network case study · Supports: 2019 strategy, Grey credit and agency-reported January–February exposure totals.
- ITV News: divided response to Gillette campaign →Contemporary reporting · Supports: 15 January 2019 reporting, film content and opposing responses.
- Gillette: local activity →Primary brand source · Supports: Brand description of 2019 platform and named community partnerships.
Independent educational analysis of external campaigns. These are not SNS client projects, endorsements or claims of involvement. Campaign facts and reported outcomes are attributed to their sources. Explanations, adaptations and test plans are original analysis and hypotheses, not proven causal findings.