Razor haters shouting into void
Some people feel slighted, outraged and unfairly judged, some are delighted. Along with the whole of the internet-connected world, marketing experts have been looking carefully at Gillette’s new ‘‘The Best Men Can Be’’ campaign since its release this week.
Opinion over the execution differs – one purpose consultancy executive (yes, that really is a thing!) felt Gillette should drop the ‘‘judgey’’ stuff about toxic masculinity and concentrate on the positive messages – but there’s no denying its viral impact.
Purpose marketing is a relatively new thing for men but women have been fed this kind of enticement for yonks.
Dove first started spruiking bodypositivity in 2004, and debate has raged ever since over whether their ads really work to bust beauty stereotypes. Dove has stuck to its message, while being criticised for continuing to cast women with great hair, great skin, no tattoos or scars – and most tellingly, no disabilities. For that alone we should all be extremely sceptical.
But those who feel insulted and outraged by the Gillette ad might have to stop and consider a potentially much worse reality – their own irrelevance.
A 2018 Deloitte survey of millennials showed 91 per cent would switch to a brand aligned with a cause; and 70 per cent would pay extra for the privilege.
Maybe the haters of the ‘‘Best Men Can Be’’ ad are shouting into the void, while Gillette cleverly secures its future with a new generation.
required. But the episode still haunts C, and the jury system is perpetuating experiences like hers.
Anna*, one of those who has been in touch, says the judge’s advice on reaching a decision ‘‘beyond reasonable doubt’’ sent her jury into a tailspin. Most of them were convinced the defendant had raped a 14-year-old, ‘‘but it was late on a Friday and we all wanted to go home’’.
The bulk of the people I spoke to last week agreed the trial process was damaging for the victims and needs to change (it was relatively difficult to find someone willing to robustly defend the current system) but I had expected some push-back from lawyers. Not the case.
A partner in a North Island law firm told me it was common knowledge 20 years ago that jury trials were failing ‘‘and revictimising’’ victims of sexual crimes. ‘‘There were calls then for a specialist court and to use an inquisitorial system,’’ he told me, noting the system had ‘‘clearly failed’’.
He wants to see a specialist court for sex crimes and believes that, ‘‘despite the views of the Criminal Bar Association’’, there is widespread support for that in the legal profession.
Twenty years, and little has changed. That lawyer is not wrong when he says politicians and the legal profession need to ‘‘stop making excuses’’ and create a new specialist court for sex crimes. I’d add to that – trained judges should instead be making these rulings.
The jury’s time is up.