P&G: Get Out from Under the Hood

20 years ago, Gillette introduced a campaign that completely re-energized its brand and company.

It was "The Best A Man Can Get" and its zippy song, sung by the nation's top jingle-writer and singer Jake Holmes, talked about "looking sharp" and showed a succession of non-celebrity, clean-shaven men going to work, running in races, and hugging wives at the airport. Launched at a time when grunge was ascendant, it re-asserted Gillette not only as a corporate icon, but a clean-shaven one at that.

The 1989 campaign came at a perfect time for the then Boston-based company, as it subsequently unleashed a steady succession of blockbuster razors like Sensor. At that time it wasn't just razors; Gillette was brands like Right Guard anti-perspirant, Duracell batteries and Foamy shaving cream.

Gillette is now part of Procter & Gamble (PG). And has it ever changed under the auspices of P&G. Today, if you go on Gillette's YouTube site, instead of elegantly done commercials extolling the virtues being clean shaven, there are strange messages. There are Tiger Woods "Phenom" videos. Not bad, but it misses as instead of a normal-guy product-driven shaving message, it's an expensive "we're so cool" non-strategy. (Furthermore, I don't ever recall P&G needing to use celebrities in their advertising.) Then there are strange Fusion razor videos, with odd techno music and a discussion of the merits of five blades.

Nasty, nasty

Worst of all, there is the Gillette body shaving series, where cartoon video character talks to young men about the virtues of "trimming the bush to make the tree look taller" and the "unique topographical features under the hood." The video has 1.5 million views, which is a hit. But is it doing the right thing for the Gillette brand? The ad ends with: "Be adventurous. Go ahead have some fun." So we have gone in our marketing from "father to son" to encouraging young men to go out and get some?

The YouTube comments nail it.

Just the fact that they have a single blade on the reverse side for "those tricky areas" should be evidence enough that the whole more blades=better is stupid bull****. I use a double blade cheapo piece of crap razor .... $7 for 4 blades? Are you joking?!

Another one made me laugh too:

hey gillette stop adding videos on how to shave your pubes and armpits. its disgusting and disturbing. wtf

To me, the Gillette mis-branding illustrates the problems at P&G. If you run a five-year chart comparing P&G, Clorox (CLX) and Colgate Palmolive (CL), P&G is the also ran, as its stock down around 4 percent compared to Clorox (up about 12 percent) and Colgate (up 35 percent).

What are some of the reasons?

• Tide is selling partly a discount brand, when, frankly, it should never be connected to the word discount. The company calls it a "portfolio" strategy but it is really taking a great brand down-market. Let's call it the "Sybil" strategy. You never know which Sally Field will show up!
• While I don't mind a bit of Dawn in my Cascade, I am confused with Febreze in my Mr. Clean and all other manner of mixed brands. The brand images get all confused, and I get weary.
• P&G screwed up its purchase of Baltimore-based Noxell, the parent company of Noxzema. It turned what was the nation's highest quality shaving cream, Noxzema Shave, into an also-ran brand that it subcontracted out to another company. The face creams, which lived somewhere between medicine and beauty products, were turned into mostly anti-acne products. It sold the company to Alberto-Culver for $81 million; Alberto-Culver says its quality was substandard and some of the Noxzema it got looked like cottage cheese. Alberto recently sued P&G, claiming it was misled. How embarrassing for P&G. How costly for both companies, and a great brand name, Noxzema.
• It has had a strange foray into luxury brands with the purchase of the fashion house Rochas. While there are certainly high margins in luxury brands, the genius of P&G is that it makes everyday products a luxury brand for all. It first shut down the Rochas fashion brand, and restarted it. What the heck is P&G doing with an Italian fashion house?
• It sold Folgers. Brands like Folgers allowed regular, if sometimes unimpressive returns. The reason for having products like Folgers is the consistent returns, through ups and downs. It builds a baseline when fewer folks are buying Oil of Olay. Right now, I don't know what is a P&G product; do they still make Pert, Prell and Ivory? I can't keep up.
• It is adding Oil of Olay to Dawn. Frankly, we never cared about our hands getting soft with Dawn. We wanted to kill the grease with Dawn. Palmolive, instead, is the brand for hands. Frankly, if I were Colgate Palmolive, I would say that is getting pretty close to old Madge, eh?
• It has lost interest in soap operas. This sad tale has been un-noticed by most, but it signals a change from over half-a-century tradition. Guiding Light leaves the airwaves this September; Another World is already gone. There has been fan interest in watching these shows on the web, but nothing has come of it; what is useful to remember about Guiding Light is that it moved from radio to television, and could easily survive on the web and on cable. Furthermore, the P&G soaps could be developed into a New York tourist attraction, with their millions of fans. Total missed opportunity.

At its best, P&G stands for simple, clear declarative brands (Tide, Sure, Crest) that deliver superior value at a slightly premium price. Right now, I am confused by the number of sub-brand "portfolios" at P&G. Is the Charmin the good Charmin, or the cheap version? Which Tide is best? And how many types of Crest do we need?

Each of these product decisions might work to sell more of a particular product at a particular time. But overall, it becomes confusing to consumers, and far more expensive to sustain.

All of this is not to say that P&G is not a worthwhile company. The cash it produces each month is formidable. Each time I use Dawn or Cascade, I am stunned at how well it works, for such a price. But if P&G is to be the company that it was, it needs to simplify its brands and rethink what has happened to Gillette.

Comments

[skwestorange:]

I suspect P&G is getting out in front the new reality as PIMCO describes it. May be it has to if it must survive what promises to be a few rough quarters till unemployment comes down. Having been great in the past we should hope they know how to make this transition without screwing up what had been their secret to success.

Aug 31 01:29 PM

[Ex-P&Ger:]

The company is in transition (again); unfortunately they have too many top management layers that are rewarded by short term ideas (hence the multitude of crossing names, products, usage, etc), and not for long term, steady results. They are not alone in this trend, nor they are the worse offenders.

Hey have the people to turn this around and hopefully they will.

Aug 31 01:52 PM

[User 479977:]

As a former P&G-er for many years, I can tell you that this author doesn't have a clue about the business.

P&G isn't perfect but it is the best company ever for growing, maintaining, and reviving brands. Look at Old Spice as an example - a nearly deceased brand that is now young and relevant again.

By the time of the merger, Noxell was already made up mainly of Cover Girl Cosmetics - which continues to do fairly well. Noxzema was and is a dead brand since my mother stopped using it more than 40 years ago. The shaving creme was a marinal part of an aging and marginal brand.

Ditto the soap operas. Check the viewship and demographics.

If you want to learn about P&G, read something from a qualified analyst.

Dave

Aug 31 03:57 PM

[mikemichaelson:]

I agree with Dave. Honestly, what did Noxema provide PG with on the bottom line? This is a $80 Million sale. In a product portfolio of several thousand items, a tiny little line like this doesn't mean anything. Old Spice and Gilette Razors are stalwarts.


On Aug 31 03:57 PM User 479977 wrote:

> As a former P&G-er for many years, I can tell you that this author
> doesn't have a clue about the business.
>
> P&G isn't perfect but it is the best company ever for growing,
> maintaining, and reviving brands. Look at Old Spice as an example
> - a nearly deceased brand that is now young and relevant again.<br/>
>
> By the time of the merger, Noxell was already made up mainly of Cover
> Girl Cosmetics - which continues to do fairly well. Noxzema was and
> is a dead brand since my mother stopped using it more than 40 years
> ago. The shaving creme was a marinal part of an aging and marginal
> brand.
>
> Ditto the soap operas. Check the viewship and demographics.
>
> If you want to learn about P&amp;G, read something from a qualified
> analyst.
>
> Dave

Sep 02 01:29 PM

[Will King:]

gillette, fusion the most expensive shaving brand your dad can get. over-bladed, over-packaged & over-priced. think CD to king of shaves ipod of a razor, the azor. as i say in my blog, i wouldn't want to be in the hotseat at gillette right now - bet jim kilts & peter hoffman can't believe the price they got for it ($165m for mr kilts alone!)

Sep 07 05:51 PM