Why did Gillette feature a former sex worker in their “We Believe” campaign?
Gillette featured transgender activist Samson Bonkeabantu Brown – who openly discussed his past sex work – to embody their campaign’s theme of redefining modern masculinity through diverse lived experiences. The razor brand specifically sought authentic stories challenging toxic masculinity stereotypes during their 2019 “We Believe” initiative. Brown’s inclusion aimed to demonstrate corporate allyship with marginalized communities, positioning Gillette as progressive. This decision reflected marketing director Pankaj Bhalla’s stated goal to “highlight role models showing the positive impact men can have” through unconventional narratives.The campaign deliberately prioritized intersectionality by featuring Brown’s dual identity as both a transgender man and former sex worker. Gillette’s creative agency, Grey Group, selected participants whose experiences countered traditional masculine archetypes, believing these stories would resonate with younger demographics. By showcasing Brown’s journey from survival sex work to becoming a celebrated artist and LGBTQ+ advocate, Gillette attempted to reframe societal perceptions of masculinity. However, this approach ignited fierce debates about whether corporations should commodify complex personal traumas for commercial messaging.
How did Samson Bonkeabantu Brown’s background influence the ad’s message?
Brown’s background provided tangible examples of resilience against societal marginalization, which aligned with Gillette’s “positive masculinity” framework. His narration in the campaign detailed how transitioning helped him escape exploitative sex work – framing gender identity as fundamental to personal redemption. This narrative arc served Gillette’s thematic focus on self-improvement through their products while attempting to humanize stigmatized communities. The ad’s directors intentionally juxtaposed Brown’s past struggles with present stability to visually represent their “best a man can be” slogan.However, activists criticized how the campaign simplified systemic issues like transgender discrimination and economic precarity into individual triumph stories. By presenting Brown’s sex work history as a challenge overcome solely through personal grit, critics argued Gillette ignored structural inequalities that push LGBTQ+ youth into survival economies. The ad’s uplifting soundtrack and hopeful tone further sanitized the harsh realities of street-based sex work, raising ethical questions about leveraging trauma for inspirational marketing without addressing root causes.
What controversy surrounded Gillette’s inclusion of a sex worker?
The primary controversy centered on accusations of “woke capitalism” – using progressive social issues superficially to sell products while ignoring corporate accountability. Conservative audiences denounced Brown’s presence as inappropriate brand alignment with sex work, with #BoycottGillette trending globally. Simultaneously, LGBTQ+ advocates criticized Gillette for exploiting marginalized trauma without supporting sex worker rights organizations. This dual backlash reflected polarized cultural reactions to corporate social justice messaging.Quantifiable fallout emerged through social listening data: 1.2 million negative mentions within 48 hours, dwarfing positive engagement. Critics specifically highlighted the hypocrisy of a corporation owned by Procter & Gamble – fined $8 million in 2019 for gender pay disparities – positioning itself as a male ally. The campaign’s release during the #MeToo era amplified scrutiny, with many noting Gillette’s decades of hyper-masculine advertising contradicted their sudden activism. Sales dipped 6% in the subsequent quarter, though attribution remains debated.
Did sex worker advocacy groups support Gillette’s approach?
Major sex worker rights organizations like SWAN Canada and Decrim NY condemned the campaign for co-opting narratives without substantive action. They noted Gillette never consulted sex worker-led groups during production nor donated to related causes despite profiting from Brown’s story. The ad’s framing of sex work as inherently shameful contradicted decriminalization movements fighting stigma. While acknowledging Brown’s personal autonomy in sharing his experience, advocates emphasized the difference between individual storytelling and corporate exploitation of systemic injustice.Gillette’s silence on policy issues like the Nordic Model versus full decriminalization further revealed the campaign’s performative nature. No partnerships emerged with organizations combating violence against sex workers or supporting exit programs. This disconnect demonstrated how brands often tokenize marginalized voices while avoiding controversial political stances that might impact profitability. The campaign’s legacy became a cautionary case study in activist marketing ethics across business schools.
How did the campaign impact Gillette’s brand perception?
Brand tracking surveys revealed dramatic polarization: favorability among liberals increased 18% while conservative approval plummeted 34%. YouGov data showed Gen Z consumers responded positively to the representation but questioned authenticity, with 61% stating “brands should back activism with action.” Long-term, the controversy cemented Gillette’s identity crisis as it struggled to balance tradition with progressive reinvention. Competitors like Harry’s capitalized by positioning themselves as authentically apolitical alternatives.The financial impact proved complex – while initial sales dipped, e-commerce engagement surged 135% among urban millennials. However, retailer feedback indicated significant pushback in conservative regions, with Walmart reporting higher returns of Gillette products. Internal Procter & Gamble documents later revealed they anticipated short-term losses but underestimated the sustained polarization. Marketing analysts noted the campaign permanently altered Gillette’s brand architecture, forcing a retreat to product-focused ads by 2021 after failed attempts to replicate the buzz.
What lessons did marketers learn from this controversy?
Three key lessons emerged: First, brands must align internal practices with external messaging – Gillette’s pay gap undermined their equality stance. Second, campaigns involving marginalized trauma require partnerships with relevant communities beyond token representation. Third, polarization risk assessments became standard in activist marketing, with tools like sentiment trajectory modeling predicting backlash thresholds. Agencies now prioritize “impact transparency” showing how cause-marketing funds tangible support.The campaign also demonstrated generational divides in tolerance for brand activism. While 55% of consumers over 50 felt corporations should avoid social issues, 78% of under-30s expected brands to take stands – but with authentic long-term commitment. This shifted how companies structure campaigns, with Patagonia’s environmental activism often cited as preferable due to its policy advocacy and consistent action. Gillette’s experience became a benchmark for calculating the “controversy ROI” in boardrooms worldwide.
How does this reflect broader trends in brand activism?
Gillette’s campaign epitomized the high-risk “values-based marketing” trend dominating 2010s corporate strategy, where brands took explicit sociopolitical positions to differentiate themselves. This approach reflected research showing purpose-driven brands grow 2.5x faster than neutral competitors. However, the backlash illustrated critical limitations – particularly when addressing intersectional issues like gender identity and sex work where public consensus is absent. Brands increasingly recognize that superficial alignment with social justice movements without material support invites accusations of “rainbow washing” or “pinkwashing.”The controversy accelerated the evolution toward “action-first activism,” where brands lead with tangible initiatives before marketing them. Nike’s support of Colin Kaepernick succeeded because it partnered with his nonprofit and funded community programs, whereas Gillette’s campaign appeared extractive. Modern brand activism requires three pillars: financial investment in causes, policy advocacy, and authentic representation in governance – not just advertising. Gillette’s retrospective case studies now emphasize this holistic framework to avoid perceived exploitation.
What ethical considerations arise when featuring marginalized groups?
Five ethical imperatives emerged post-campaign: 1) Compensating participants equitably beyond standard talent fees 2) Granting editorial control to subjects over their narratives 3) Ensuring long-term support for related causes 4) Transparency about commercial motives 5) Preparing participants for potential backlash. Gillette faced criticism on all fronts – Brown received standard modeling compensation without residuals, had no contractual story approval rights, and was exposed to vicious online harassment without adequate brand protection.The campaign highlighted power imbalances when corporations leverage individual trauma. Ethical guidelines now recommend psychological vetting for participants sharing traumatic experiences and mandatory aftercare support. Brand marketers increasingly adopt documentary-style ethics codes, recognizing advertising’s capacity to retraumatize when handling sensitive topics. Gillette’s failure to implement these safeguards became an industry cautionary tale, inspiring initiatives like the Conscious Advertising Network’s ethical influencer framework.
How has representation of sex workers in advertising evolved?
Historically, sex workers appeared in ads as tropes – either glamorized escorts in fragrance campaigns or victimized figures in anti-trafficking PSAs. Gillette’s campaign represented an uneasy transition toward nuanced portrayals, albeit with problematic execution. Current trends show increased collaboration with sex worker collectives like Red Umbrella Project, who consult on authentic representation that avoids “rescue narratives.” Brands like Lush now partner with sex worker-led organizations in campaigns, sharing profits and platform access.Post-Gillette, best practices emphasize centering current sex workers rather than exclusively featuring “exit stories” that reinforce stigma. Advertising standards increasingly reject dehumanizing terminology like “prostitute” in favor of “sex worker” – a shift reflected in recent Style Guide updates from AP and Reuters. However, mainstream brands still avoid explicit engagement due to payment processor restrictions and moral panic risks. The evolving landscape shows tension between genuine representation and commercial pragmatism, with most progress in indie brands rather than multinationals.
What distinguishes exploitative from empowering representation?
Empowering representation centers on four criteria: agency in storytelling decisions, fair economic participation, alignment with community advocacy goals, and ongoing relationship beyond campaign duration. Exploitative representation occurs when brands extract cultural capital without reciprocity, use trauma as emotional manipulation, or reinforce harmful stereotypes. Gillette’s campaign fell into the latter category by isolating Brown’s narrative from collective sex worker struggles while profiting from his marginalization.Current ethical frameworks developed by groups like Sex Work Inclusion Project emphasize “nothing about us without us” – requiring sex worker involvement at creative, production, and distribution stages. Empowerment also demands brands challenge criminalization through policy positions, not just symbolic representation. When Calvin Klein featured sex worker turned model Arisce Wanzer, they partnered with Decrim NY and donated 15% of sales to bail funds – demonstrating the integrated approach now considered industry gold standard.