1.Gillette has successfully convinced the world that "more is better" in terms of number of blades and other razor features. Why has that worked in the past? What's next?
2.Some of Gillette's spokespeople such as Tiger Woods have run into controversy after becoming endorsers for the brand. Does this hurt Gillette's brand equity or marketing message? Explain.
3.Can Gillette ever become as successful at marketing to women? Why or Why not?
Gillette Case Study Posting ID: 514119
1. In the past, Gillette's market to the masculine, made it seem as if the shaving products were responsible for everything related to masculinity, such as, "Gillette [was] responsible for men getting their jobs, getting the girl, having the life and, most importantly, being men" www.marketingmag.com. Gillette caters to genderisation that is, providing men with on entire line of grooming products. Gillette used traditional brand marketing; "when you do something and it works, you keep doing it until it stops working and that was what felt like what was happening going from three to five blades" (Newman, 2010).
Now there is a little controversy brewing about multiple blade technology. In 2010, Shick broke the cycle of Gillette's focus on more's better in terms of number of blades. The thought behind this new approach was that the razor becomes bigger as you add more blades. Therefore, improving the quality of the shave becomes more attractive and feasible, not by adding more blades; this was known as comfort positioning. What's next for Gillette includes improving ...
This solution embraces the reasoning behind Gillette's infamous claim that "more is better", and is an insightful look into the challenges faced in its efforts to market to women. A Word document of over 700 words of text supplements the posting.