Three Year Letterman Gives Props to Euroweenie Who'll Never Visit This Barbaric Country...
Clueless Columnist Asks If It’s Now a Crime to Expose White Supremacist Groups
Check Out the Twisted Wording of Virginia's Gerrymandering Referendum
Hasan Piker Joins the NYT to Talk About ‘Microlooting’ as Political Protest
Howard Kurtz: The Kash Patel ‘Scandal’ Would Have Been a Two-Day Story Had...
RFK Jr. Absolutely Torches Sen. Warnock: 'One Person Can Handle 1-3 Rabies Cases...
Here's a Classic Earth Day Flashback of Greg Gutfeld Giving Tugboat Phil a...
With Kash Patel Closing in on the SPLC, Judiciary Dems Want Him to...
ACLU Says DC Curfew Puts Kids at Risk of Unnecessary Encounters With Police
All Is Halted! Virginia Judge Declares Narrow Redistricting Vote Unconstitutional, Blocks...
The Polite Right's Fatal Flaw – DeSantis and Rufo Show How to Fix...
Rumor: The Talarico Camp Is Sitting on Career-Ending Dirt on Both Paxton and...
Reporter Asks Ilhan Omar About Her Curious Financial 'Adjustment' (Brace for Smug Head...
Sen. Chris Murphy Loses It Over Trump Sending 1,000 Afghan 'Heroes' to the...
Welcome to Advanced Mathematics, With Your Guest Lecturer ... The View's Sunny Hostin?

Gillette becomes the billion-dollar losing segment of parent company following its toxic masculinity commercial

 

Proctor and Gamble recently released its quarterly earnings report and things were mostly positive. Quarterly revenue was up, and the stock performed well above Wall Street estimates. Share prices rose to new highs as the company appears to be performing very strong.

Advertisement

Just not all of the company. Amid all of the great economic news there was one dark cloud:

So while the rest of the company is doing gangbusters the only sector seeing a massive loss was the Gillette division. The report mentioned a number of factors leading to the losses, such as foreign monetary rates and an overall slump in the grooming market.

Others sense another influence:

Advertisement

Even if you wanted to cite those indicators this would still mean the commercial did not work as intended to stem the losses. It also defies the company announcing after the commercial’s release that it was widely supported. Guess calling your base customers problematic toxic individuals does not endear them to your product after all???

Advertisement

It was just days ago that the CEO of the company was still defending the ad, claiming that it may have only alienated “some” customers.

Gillette’s CEO and president, Gary Coombe, says that angering some consumers with its #metoo campaign was a “price worth paying” if it meant the brand could increase its relevance among younger consumers and turn around its falling market share.

That is some brazenly attempted spin. You are facing an isolated loss in the billions. That is quite the opposite of turning around a falling share in the market. This could be a classic case study in marketing schools in how to NOT to appeal to new customers.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement