Talk:The Best Men Can Be

"Some"

This article attempts to minimize and marginalize criticism. The video received overwhelmingly-negative feedback. Attempting to say that "some" criticized it is dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. This commercial is used as an example of a marketing failure in marketing classes. 134.87.185.169 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Repeated removal of important context

You do not need a source to say this campaign advertisement is about promoting positive ethical values among men. That is the basis of the campaign's existence. MOS:LINKS does not outright bar links in quotes, they just have to accurately reflect what the author meant. In addition, the constant removal of a statement from the lead that rebuts criticism of the ad, in my opinion, contradicts WP:LEAD and NPOV; a lead has to summarize the article's entire contents, and we most reflect all viewpoints prominent in reliable sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you do need reliable sources to say anything like that. In direct contradiction to your point, an equally valid point is that the campaign's "existance" is to sell more razors, and make Gillette more money, and that if their Marketing department thought that it would be more effective to do this, Gillette would have used the exact opposite political message to sell their product.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Mainly conservatives?

The wording of this article greatly disturbs and worries me.

"Having faced wide criticism, mainly from conservatives" - seriously? This is objective writing?

If Wikipedia is starting to be a political forum rather than a source for objective information we are moving in a very bad direction. Wikipedia should NOT be a forum for liberal (or conservative) viewpoints. (And before anyone goes off on me, I'm a Libertarian that voted for Gary Johnson, the least crazy of the three candidates, which I never thought would be possible......).

If you want to include liberal and conservative responses to the ad in the body of the article, fine, that is appropriate- but to include this leading statement in the introduction to the topic is absolutely disingenuous.

It's pretty obvious Gillette was willing to alienate the Right, in order to pander to the Left, for the purpose of achieving greater sales. You can't decry the "politicization" of Wikipedia on the one hand while promoting your favorite candidate on the other. Wikipedia has policies designed to deliver exactly what you claim to want ("objective information"), however understanding what those policies are, and how they are intended to deliver it are difficult to understand and counter-intuitive. Tailoring an Article to suit your (or anyone else's) political opinions is the exact opposite of "objective". Also please sign your posts.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think changing "mainly conservatives" to "particularly among conservatives" would be both more even-handed and accurate. 134.87.185.169 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement in lead

We have: "The "We Believe" advertisement was the subject of minor controversy". Minor controversy? I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the UK it's a major controversy, with all the main media outlets covering it, some in length. I propose 'minor' be changed to 'major', or at the very least, 'minor' be omitted. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe just "subject of controversy"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Removes the subjectivity. Maybe you could change it later (I think you're in the US?) if no one else chips in. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Already done by another editor. Silas Stoat (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources and references forcing conditions on the reader

Perhaps going off on a bit of a tangent, but here goes: in the lead there are a couple of references to Time Magazine (ref 2). When accessing these references, at least from within the European Union, you are taken to an intermediate page which forces you to accept cookie deployment and data transfer conditions that some, maybe many, users would find unacceptable. I, for one, rejected this condition, so I was unable to access the reference. Is there a Wikipedia policy on the use of this type of source? For me, if the source is not immediately accessible without conditions then it should not be used as a source. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources do not even have to be online, so requiring registration, or accepting cookies, is not, by itself a determining factor in reliability. If you had some specific reason to think Time was collecting data for nefarious purposes, perhaps this would fall under WP:SPAM/WP:ELNO, but this seems like a much, much harder case to make. Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Cinema of Change

What is Cinema of Change, and is it a reliable source? The author is Tobias Deml, so who is he? (Maybe de:Tobias Deml?) The site's about page doesn't fill me with confidence. The currently cited article itself cites Wikipedia a couple of times, making it a WP:CIRC risk. Regardless of how in-depth or interesting a source is, it still needs to be reliable as a baseline. We need a reliable source to demonstrate both that these statistics are correct, and also that they are significant enough to mention at all. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this source doesn't appear to be reliable, and the reference is derived from Wikipedia's List of most-disliked YouTube videos, I have removed both uses of the source pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Ace Metrix survey results

Hi, I'm Samantha and I'd like to propose an addition to this Wikipedia article. I have a conflict of interest, so I'll let other editors review this request and update the article for me, instead of editing the article myself. I understand this is preferred protocol.

I recognize this campaign has received a mixed reception, and different reactions should be covered in the "Reception" section. I propose adding mention of Ace Metrix's survey results for this campaign. This Forbes article says, "Ace Metrix found that two-thirds of respondents rated the ad's message as the "single best thing about the ad," and 65% said the ad made them more or much more likely to purchase Gillette." Therefore, I propose adding the following:

In a survey conducted by Ace Metrix, two-thirds of participants rated the advertisement's message as its best quality, and 65 percent said they were "more or much more likely" to buy Gillette products.

References

I believe this statement is both fair and accurate, and verified by a reliable source. Thank you. SPolicanoKetchum (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is a relatively brief mention buried in the middle of a much longer article. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and presenting a single statistic stripped of surrounding context is not neutral or appropriate.

I appreciate that you are requesting changes on the talk page, and are being transparent about your conflict of interest. In the future, please use Template:Request edit to request edits. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Do you still feel the same way if the Ace Metrix results are mentioned in multiple sources?

• Advertising Age says, "The "We Believe" video from Grey became a lightning rod for mostly conservative critics immediately after its release, but survey respondents who viewed it without first seeing social-media commentary viewed the video favorably in surveys from Ace Metrix and Morning Consult."

• The Holmes Report says, "Ace Metrix and Morning Consult, both of which conducted surveys last week in the days immediately after Gillette debuted its centerpiece longform spot, found the majority of viewers support the message of the campaign, called The Best Men Can Be." The same article also says, "The Ace Metrix survey of 500 viewers also found that despite the online backlash to the ad, which included calls to boycott Gillette razors, the spot didn’t rank as particularly polarizing — and rated notably less polarizing than Nike’s Colin Kaepernick ad."

• CMO says, "... however, Ace Metrix recently reported the response to the ad was overwhelmingly positive, with a 65 per cent more/much more purchase intent."

My goal is not to present obscure details, but rather to include all perspectives. SPolicanoKetchum (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please look closely at the surrounding context those source all include. Mentioning the survey without also including that context would be misrepresenting the point the sources are making. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: The links that mention the Ace Metrix survey results tend to cover:

• (1.) the fact that Gillette launched this campaign as part of the general trend of brands supporting social movements
• (2.) there was a mixed critical response including some backlash
• (3.) criticism that the message didn't necessarily fit well for the brand, however the majority of surveyed people in the general public felt favorably towards the campaign

As information about the critical response is already covered in the article, I'd thought that just the survey results could be added. If I'm understanding you correctly, it would be better to add something that incorporates that context in summary form. Here's what I've put together to try to do that without getting too duplicative:

• "Various media pieces summed up the responses to the campaign and discussed it in relation to the company's sponsorships and other similar advertising campaigns. These pieces noted that the campaign received a mixed response including backlash from conservatives and criticism that the message did not necessarily fit well for the brand. They also noted that despite the criticism, a survey conducted by Ace Metrix found the campaign was received favorably, with two-thirds of participants rating the advertisement's message as its best quality, and 65 percent saying they were "more or much more likely" to buy Gillette products."

Does this capture the context appropriately? SPolicanoKetchum (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does this survey data include the most recent Sales figures for Gillette? I've done some research and cannot find any, which is interesting considering that an ad campaign that has generated this much "splash" in the media would certainly release those figures (to be reported by RS) if the sales had increased. The concern here is Gillette is putting effort into asserting information into the Article that is "good news", while withholding less favorable information. In general terms, I think the average Reader wants to know if the campaign increased sales or not. Also, promoting the positive aspects of the campaign while withholding the negative is another form of advertisement, which I assume Wikipedia Policy prohibits. Also I question the reliability of the source being suggested.Tym Whittier (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Now in the Top 20!

Gillette is now the 20th most-disliked YouTube video. --LABcrabs (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest P&G Q3 report shows grooming down turn in sales...

Can some mention be made of how since starting this campaign P&G have lost over $1bn in sales with grooming showing a major down turn. Real evidence of a boycott, not just an online backlash... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.109.248 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a source? I'm interested in looking into this. I could find no mention of Gillettes Sales one way or the other. Plus you have several hurdles to overcome, that I can see. First the mention of a downturn in Sales, second RS connecting that to the campaign directly, or through P & G, to Gillette and from there to the campaign. Simply saying "P & G had a downturn in Sales, and that's because of the "toxic masculinity campaign" can't be done. You need RS to directly connect the hypothetical downturn in Sales to the campaign. And, given the "cooperative nature" of corporations, it's entirely possible that a downturn in Sales would be "explained away" by other factors, so even if the theory is TRUE, finding RS willing to say it may be very difficult. I find the whole question fascinating, either way. Did it work? Did it fail? The "New Coke" debacle comes to mind. It would really improve this Article if that information could be found.Tym Whittier (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Accused of supposedly practicing"

This comes across ash NPOV and higly defensive. The "supposedly" is already implied by the fact it's an accusation rather than proof. The practicing in just the cherry on top,78.30.17.12 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I also noticed this and attempted to fix. Accused of supposedly is not only a violation of neutral point of view, but also it's stupid person talk.70.127.17.241 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Writedown

Apparently they took an 8billion (dollars I'm assuming) write down after sales collapsed after that advert. scope_creep^Talk 16:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of unreliable source

SPolicanoKetchum (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Hello again! I've returned to request removal of a specific claim from the article's introduction on behalf of Gillette: "and the company reported a $5.24 billion loss later in 2019". User:Veikk0.ma removed the claim "Gillette reported a $5.24 billion loss following the ad" on the Gillette article because The Daily Wire is not considered a reliable source. @Veikk0.ma: Are you willing to remove the claim here for the same reason? Thanks, SPolicanoKetchum (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added another reference that confirms the statement. Maproom (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The source you added was from OneNewsNow, which is a news site for American Family Association. I dispute that this is a reliable source by itself, and lacking a reliable source, this appears to be inappropriate and undue. We would need a reliable source to directly link this ad campaign to any changes in revenue. We cannot use unreliable sources, and for the lede we should also avoid flimsy sources such as passing mentions or brief blurbs. We especially cannot use WP:OR. Quality sources are not optional here. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Grayfell. SPolicanoKetchum (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Added Gilette $5.24bn loss in same year as this ad

References are from the Washington Times newspaper this time. Gillette will undoubtedly send more people to request removal of the link, like above.

But this time the Washington Times happens to be a reliable source. And as per reliable source:

“Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.”

Deleting the information again will be an obvious infringement of Wikipedia neutrality. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh huh. Acknowledging that this is a biased source a step in the right direction, but that still doesn't make it a reliable source. Per WP:RSP, The Washington Times is "marginal", and has a reputation for publishing misinformation and WP:FRINGE theories, such as on second-hand smoke, climate change, and the current pandemic. If you have a reliable source which directly supports that there is a link between this campaign and their revenue, present it. WP:SYNTH is not enough, and flaky sources are also not enough. To be clear, I have no problem including this at all, but there need to be real sources, not weird political gossip or stale reddit crap. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)