In January 2019, Procter & Gamble CEO David Taylor found himself defending a Gillette advert that had split the internet in two. The 'We Believe' short film, released online on 13 January 2019, replaced the brand's 30-year-old tagline 'The Best a Man Can Get' with 'The Best Men Can Be'. The campaign directly addressed toxic masculinity, showing men intervening to stop bullying, harassment, and sexist behavior. Within days, the video had millions of views and an unusually high ratio of dislikes to likes. Calls for a boycott spread across social media. Taylor, who was Chairman, President and CEO of the company from November 2015 to November 2021, did not retreat. He publicly defended the campaign at industry events and in statements throughout 2019, framing it as aligned with P&G's brand-building philosophy. The controversy did not lead to a sustained boycott that materially harmed the brand's market position. Taylor completed his tenure in November 2021 and the 'We Believe' campaign remained a case study in purpose-driven marketing.
What the advert showed that angered viewers
The three-minute film was a departure from Gillette's previous advertising, which typically showed a man achieving a close shave while a woman admired him. Instead, 'We Believe' opened with a montage of aggressive male behavior: a man catcalling a woman on the street, a boardroom full of men talking over a female colleague, and a fight breaking out in a schoolyard. The message was that men could do better. The advert ended with the new tagline and the words 'It's only by challenging ourselves to do more that we get closer to our best.'
Many viewers interpreted the advert as accusing all men of toxic behavior. The YouTube video received more than 1.5 million dislikes in its first week. Conservative commentators called for a boycott of Gillette products. Men's rights activists joined them. Some former customers posted videos of themselves throwing away Gillette razors. The backlash was loud enough to become a news story in itself, with coverage in outlets ranging from the BBC to Fox News.
Taylor's defense of the campaign
Standing for something meaningful
David Taylor did not wait for the controversy to die down. In interviews and at investor conferences throughout 2019, he argued that the advert was consistent with P&G's long-standing approach to brand building. He said the company believed that brands which stood for something meaningful would build stronger connections with consumers. Taylor also pointed to internal P&G research showing that younger male consumers expected the brands they bought to take positions on social issues.
The cost of cultural relevance
Taylor acknowledged that the advert was polarizing. But he characterized the strong reaction as a sign that the campaign had struck a nerve, which he considered evidence of cultural relevance. He did not apologize for the content or the timing. Instead, he framed the criticism as a necessary cost of reaching a new generation of consumers. P&G's annual report for fiscal 2019 later stated that the impairment charge on Gillette was primarily due to a reduction in the estimated size of the blades and razors market, not the advert.
The business rationale behind a risky advert
A shrinking market
Taylor's public statements made clear that 'We Believe' was not purely a values exercise. The shaving market was shrinking. Men were growing beards, and the rise of subscription services like Dollar Shave Club and Harry's had eroded Gillette's dominant market share. P&G had acquired the brand in 2005 for $57 billion, and it had been struggling to maintain its premium positioning. Taylor argued that Gillette needed to modernize its image to stay relevant to younger men who did not identify with the old macho advertising.
Repositioning the brand
From a business perspective, the advert was an attempt to reposition the brand for a demographic that had shifted away from it. Taylor said that purpose-driven marketing, when executed correctly, could drive both consumer loyalty and revenue growth. He pointed to P&G's 'Like a Girl' campaign for Always as an example of a controversial advert that had ultimately strengthened the brand. The bet was that the short-term backlash would be worth the long-term repositioning.
The $8 billion writedown and what it actually meant
An accounting adjustment, not a crisis
In July 2019, six months after the 'We Believe' campaign launched, P&G took an $8 billion non-cash impairment charge on the Gillette brand. The news led to immediate speculation that the boycott had damaged the brand's value. But the numbers told a more complicated story. The writedown was non-cash, meaning it did not affect P&G's operating cash flow or its ability to pay dividends. It was an accounting adjustment that reflected a lower estimated future value of the brand.
What really drove the charge
P&G's annual report for fiscal 2019 attributed the impairment primarily to currency devaluation and a shrinking shaving market. The company explicitly stated that it was not due to the advert's reception. The blades and razors category had been declining for years as men shaved less frequently and switched to cheaper alternatives. The charge acknowledged that Gillette's value in 2005, when P&G paid $57 billion, was no longer realistic. The advert may have accelerated the conversation about the brand's cultural relevance, but it did not cause the structural decline of the shaving industry.
How the campaign fit into P&G's wider brand-purpose strategy
A deliberate pattern
The 'We Believe' campaign was not an isolated experiment. Under David Taylor, P&G had made purpose-driven marketing a central part of its strategy. The company's 'Like a Girl' campaign for Always, which challenged stereotypes about female athleticism, had won awards and increased sales. Its 'The Talk' campaign for Tide and its 'Bias Correct' campaign for Dawn dish soap addressed racial bias and sustainability, respectively. Taylor argued that these campaigns worked because they were rooted in the brand's function, not grafted on for publicity.
Evolving a 30-year-old tagline
Gillette's campaign fit this pattern. The brand had used 'The Best a Man Can Get' for three decades. Changing it to 'The Best Men Can Be' was a deliberate signal that the brand was evolving. Taylor said that P&G did not expect every consumer to agree with the message, but that the company was willing to accept some controversy in exchange for building a more loyal customer base among younger men. The campaign became a case study in business schools and marketing conferences, cited both as a bold move and as a cautionary tale about the risks of taking a political stance.
The timeline and what happened next
From launch to writedown
The 'We Believe' film was released on 13 January 2019. By the end of that week, the backlash was in full swing. David Taylor made his first public defense of the campaign within days, and continued to do so throughout the year. In July 2019, P&G recorded the $8 billion impairment charge. The boycott did not sustain itself at a level that showed up in P&G's overall financial results. Gillette's market share continued to decline slowly, but that trend had been in place for years before the advert.
The long view
Taylor retired as P&G CEO on 1 November 2021 and was succeeded by Jon Moeller. The 'We Believe' campaign did not mark a turning point for Gillette's fortunes, but it did not destroy them either. The brand continued to operate as part of P&G's grooming portfolio. The episode demonstrated that a major consumer goods company could run a polarizing advert, survive the backlash, and continue to do business. For Taylor, it was a bet that paid off in the sense that the controversy did not materially harm the company. Whether it strengthened the brand in the long term remains a question that cannot be answered from the facts available here.
Key facts
- Advert released: 13 January 2019
- Old tagline: 'The Best a Man Can Get' (used for 30 years)
- New tagline: 'The Best Men Can Be'
- P&G CEO at the time: David Taylor (Chairman, President and CEO from November 2015 to November 2021)
- P&G acquisition of Gillette: $57 billion in 2005
- Writedown: $8 billion non-cash impairment charge in July 2019
- Reason for writedown per P&G: Currency devaluation and shrinking shaving market, not the advert
- Outcome: No sustained boycott; Taylor defended the campaign; he retired in November 2021
