Gillette

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Youre the one claiming you know for certain young people hate it because you've observed (with no data to back it up) that young people hated the ad. I didn't claim anything. You of all people should know that ad testing often comes back entirely different from what you personally observed. I didn't say young people loved it or hated it. I said I don't know. I'm not talking out of my ass because I didn't say the ad worked or didn't work. You did.

I didn't claim to know for certain anything. You claimed it was old people who felt alienated. I said I don't know if that is the case, but have seen some evidence that it included people of all ages. You claim that young and new customers are inherently more valuable than existing customers, and I think you are overestimating that worth. Yes, young and new customers are important, but maybe not at the expense of existing customers. Brand loyalty applies to the people who have been loyal to the damn brand, as well. I said I don't think any company values losing customers, and you ****ing debated that point, of all the crazy shit I have heard.

But whatever. I'm out.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme

I didn't claim to know for certain anything. You claimed it was old people who felt alienated. I said I don't know if that is the case, but have seen some evidence that it included people of all ages. You claim that young and new customers are inherently more valuable than existing customers, and I think you are overestimating that worth. Yes, young and new customers are important, but maybe not at the expense of existing customers. Brand loyalty applies to the people who have been loyal to the damn brand, as well. I said I don't think any company values losing customers, and you ****ing debated that point, of all the crazy shit I have heard.

But whatever. I'm out.

Why is that weird to say younger audiences are LESS likely to be alienated by social justice messaging. The ad was clearly targeted to a younger audience. Did it actually hit the mark? I have no idea. It's polarizing enough that it wouldn't at all surprise me if it whiffed.

And yes, young customers for the razor category are significantly more valuable than older customers. Not just a little. A lot. It's simple customer lifetime value and switching costs. That's not talking out my ass. That's simple economics. No company values losing customers, but acquiring 1 young customer is probably worth losing a few older ones in the razor category. Not that that's even much of a risk, since brand loyal customers are far less likely to leave, even if they hate an ad like this.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Why is that weird to say younger audiences are LESS likely to be alienated by social justice messaging. The ad was clearly targeted to a younger audience. Did it actually hit the mark? I have no idea. It's polarizing enough that it wouldn't at all surprise me if it whiffed.

And yes, young customers for the razor category are significantly more valuable than older customers. Not just a little. A lot. It's simple customer lifetime value and switching costs. That's not talking out my ass. That's simple economics. No company values losing customers, but acquiring 1 young customer is probably worth losing a few older ones in the razor category. Not that that's even much of a risk, since brand loyal customers are far less likely to leave, even if they hate an ad like this.

Honestly, we're sitting here talking about branding and sales and quite possibly, Gillette doesn't even see it that way. Purchasing razors, like many things in this country, comes down to price for most people. They aren't going to pay a premium either way just because Gillette does something like this or their competitors don't. It's freaking razors.

This is just another way for the elites in this country to use their money and power to tell us all how much better than us they are. Us cretins out here beating our wives and spanking our secretaries.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Honestly, we're sitting here talking about branding and sales and quite possibly, Gillette doesn't even see it that way. Purchasing razors, like many things in this country, comes down to price for most people. They aren't going to pay a premium either way just because Gillette does something like this or their competitors don't. It's freaking razors.

This is just another way for the elites in this country to use their money and power to tell us all how much better than us they are. Us cretins out here beating our wives and spanking our secretaries.

I don't see that. P&G is a brand machine. They don't do anything without a shitload of testing. There's tons of business logic for going after a millennial target. Purchasing razors is much less price sensitive than many typical OTC categories (just read brand loyalty is something like 36%). It's a reason Gillette has been gouging customers for years with crazy margins. Young customers are big-time customer targets for Gillette, and they're getting picked off left and right by online shave clubs. To me, this felt like an idea that made strategic sense, but the execution was way too cheesy... which maybe has something to do with your second point.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Beef Supreme

I said I don't think any company values losing customers

Not to go off topic, but there are some service providers (cable, mobile, and the like) that don't work too hard to retain customers. Not all of them but some of them. A lot of them don't mind moderate churn because they make just as much money losing a customer for 2 years and then signing them up again after they leave the competition as they do just trying to keep them.