It’s absolutely a positive message, and I agree with it 100%.
And I also think most of the backlash is coming from people who are resisting that message.
But I think the point of the article is that even a lot of people who agree with the message still dislike the ad.
Because it’s an ad.
Advertising, we’ve been taught, is all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors designed to trick you into buying a product you might not necessarily want (because otherwise you’d already be a customer).
So we’ve come to expect inauthenticity from ads.
When Nike hires Colin Kaepernick, they want us to believe that they stand with Colin. They want to court progressive consumers, yet 78% of Nike’s political contributions went to Republicans.
It seems inauthentic. It seems that Nike doesn’t care about Colin Kaepernick. They just want to sell shoes.
And that’s the perception that some people are getting here. That Gillette doesn’t care about this issue, they’re just using it to sell razors to people who do.
But I’m not sure that it actually matters.
Suppose that Gillette was being opportunistic and they just wanted to sell razors. They still put the message out there. Millions of people are still hearing that message — and hopefully being influenced by it.
Does it really matter what Gillette’s motives were, as long as the message is having its desired effect?