Screen Education 97 I © ATOM
48
Selling Virtue ‘WOKE’ ADVERTISING AND CORPORATE ETHICS
www.screeneducation.com.au
Screen Education 97 I © ATOM
48
Selling Virtue ‘WOKE’ ADVERTISING AND CORPORATE ETHICS
www.screeneducation.com.au
TALKING SOCIETY
Signalling a shift away from the relationship between brands’ identities and the products or services they provide, the practice of businesses using advertising to align themselves with progressive social causes has increased markedly in recent years. Speaking to marketing experts Abas Mirzaei and Ben Neville, BENJAMIN RILEY examines the motivations behind this phenomenon, as well as its consequences – for companies and society alike.
displays an apparent understanding of a very specific experience of queer life: the impact of homophobia on whether same-sex couples feel comfortable holding hands in public. It even positions itself as a moral authority on the subject by suggesting a specific course of action in response. While the ad’s desired effect on consumer behaviour is initially unclear, it does appear to be invested in linking a broadly anti-homophobic narrative with the ANZ brand. Recent years have seen similar advertising campaigns attract global attention, both positive and negative. Perhaps the
THIS SPREAD, ALL IMAGES: ANZ’s ‘#holdtight’ ad
two most famous recent examples have been campaigns created by athletic-clothing corporation Nike and men’s shaving brand Gillette. The former’s 2018 ‘Just Do It’ commercial2 featured images of athletes playing sport at a range of levels, specifically highlighting narratives of diverse athletes overcoming adversity to succeed in their sport. The ad was narrated by American footballer Colin Kaepernick, who had gained notoriety in 2016 by, prior to the commencement of matches, sitting or kneeling during the US national anthem as a protest against racial injustice in the United States.3 The latter company’s campaign, titled ‘The Best Men Can Be’,4 features examples of men and boys engaging
Screen Education 97 I © ATOM
A
melancholy piano score plays over a montage of similar images. Two people, faces unseen, reach out for each other’s hands in a range of everyday situations: walking together, climbing a tree, sitting at a table, lying by a pool. The pairs come closer to touching with each image, until we see each pair clasp hands at the same moment that it is revealed we are looking at same-sex couples holding hands in public spaces. Eventually, we cut to a shot of two women walking hand in hand onto a bus and sitting down. One of them looks warily at a man sitting nearby with a scowl on his face, and we see the women’s hands again as they release their grip. From there, with just seconds between each scene transition, we revisit each of the couples we have seen so far, as, one by one, they stop holding hands when another person enters the shot. The next scene shows a couple holding hands as they approach what looks like the entrance to a pub, where two men are sitting outside drinking beer. Just as we expect the ad to repeat the same image of the hands letting go, the hands clasp tighter. ‘When you feel like letting go,’ the on-screen text reads, ‘#holdtight’. This image begins a final montage of each couple clasping hands once more as the music swells with dramatic orchestral strings, before the screen dissolves into a corporate message: ‘ANZ is proud to continue supporting the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.’ This is clearly an advertisement for ANZ, one of Australia’s largest banks, but it is not immediately apparent what it is selling. There is no specific product mentioned, and the ad’s ‘call to action’ (to ‘hold tight’ in the face of real or perceived homophobia) does not appear to have anything to do with banking. So, how are we supposed to read this ad? What exactly is it selling? Is it significant that the ad’s implied audience is other same-sex couples? What does that have to do with banking? Most significantly, what sort of response is ANZ hoping to elicit from the ad’s viewers – and, for that matter, what sort of behaviour? This ad, which the company released in 2017 under the title ‘#holdtight’, is an instance of what has been described in some quarters as ‘woke capitalism’, a phenomenon in which corporations use advertising campaigns to acknowledge social problems or otherwise display their social-justice credentials.1 The ad
MY SS
49
benefits of their products and offering instead to their target audience, ‘What are our values?’ Distinct from this general marketing trend towards ‘signature storytelling’ for brands, ‘woke’9 ads play on topical, even controversial social issues, and they’re much more direct. These ads aren’t just designed to evoke a feeling; they’re telling you exactly what the brand ‘stands for’ on a given social or political issue. Through a combination of voiceover and imagery, the Gillette campaign hammers the viewer over the head with its message, decrying toxic masculinity. The ‘social experiment’–style ads are similarly direct: the Always ad ends by calling out the effect of everyday misogyny on young women. Even the less direct ANZ and Nike campaigns, which seem to have been designed to evoke a more general political affect, imply political positions. While not explicitly referring to it, the ANZ campaign ran in the midst of Australia’s marriageequality debate, and Kaepernick’s inclusion in Nike’s campaign aligns the ad with his anti-racism position. For Mirzaei, this turn towards issues-based marketing reflects a shift in audience values: Consumers are becoming more and more conscious about their environment, whether that is [their] social environment, whether that is nature, whether that is [their] legal or political environment […] Consumers really are moving into buying meaning, personality, mindset, value, rather than just a functional benefit.
ABOVE, FROM TOP: Nike’s 2018 ‘Just Do It’ campaign; Gillette’s ‘The Best Men Can Be’ ad
‘Woke’ advertising campaigns might be designed to play into the perceived values of consumers, but there are plenty of reasons to be cynical about the motivations behind them. Nike may appear to be using their campaign to take an ethical stance
Screen Education 97 I © ATOM
in acts of ‘toxic masculinity’, some scripted and filmed for the ad and others taken from other sources, such as news footage. An accompanying voiceover encourages men to intervene, both to prevent this behaviour and to provide positive examples for young boys so as to help them grow up to become respectful men. Each ad received significant news coverage, and generated substantial praise and backlash.5 The Nike and Gillette ads are just two examples of what has become a highly visible trend in mass-market corporate advertising: US menstrual-products brand Always released their ‘Like a Girl’ campaign in 2014, which examines the ways misogyny manifests through stereotypes of femininity;6 beer brand Heineken took on political disagreement in their ‘Worlds Apart’ campaign in 2017;7 and, in the same year, accommodation-sharing platform Airbnb ran their campaign ‘#weaccept’, which promoted a general message of diversity and acceptance.8 These ads have recurring elements: some (ANZ, Nike) are montages set to inspirational music; others (Always, Heineken) present as ‘social experiments’ designed to highlight both a social issue (misogyny, political polarisation) and its potential solution – one that inevitably aligns with the self-stated values of the brand in question. Most focus on ‘identity’ in some way: gender, sexual, racial, political. Approaches such as these represent a significant shift in the way companies think of and implement advertising campaigns. As Abas Mirzaei, a lecturer in the Department of Marketing at Macquarie University in Sydney, tells me, The question in the past two years has been, ‘What is your signature story?’ Brands have started staying away from the functional
ABOVE, FROM TOP: ‘The Best Men Can Be’; Colin Kaepernick in Nike’s ‘Just Do It’ ad 50
on racial inequality in the United States, but the company has a spotty track record at best when it comes to, for example, the labour conditions in their factories.10 So are these ads evidence of a genuine social conscience, or are they simply a savvier way of increasing profits by appearing to respond to consumers who say these issues are important to them? On the other hand, are those imperatives at odds, and is it even meaningful to make a distinction between them? Before we examine the possible motivations for this messaging, it’s worth thinking about what ‘ethical’ even means in this context. A socially conscious consumer might believe they are participating in a positive social act by purchasing the products of a brand they believe embodies those values, but, given the profit motive inherent in any corporation’s strategies, does it even make sense to apply the term ‘ethical’ to its actions? In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, economist Milton Friedman famously argued that ‘there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game’.11 This principle, which came to be known as the ‘Friedman doctrine’,12 reframed the profit motive as an ethical one. While Friedman’s arguments were controversial even when they were published, their influence remains, and they have long been used to justify corporate actions that seem at odds with
ABOVE: Always’ ‘Like a Girl’ commercial
‘Woke’ advertising campaigns might be designed to play into the perceived values of consumers, but there are plenty of reasons to be cynical about the motivations behind them. image, evidence of terrible working conditions in Nike factories is still emerging.15 Distinct from these earlier practices, which seek to associate a brand with ethical business practices, the more recent trend in ‘woke’ advertising seeks simply to associate a brand with ethical messaging. Even within the Friedman doctrine’s narrow framework for judging companies’ social responsibility, the ethics of ‘woke’ advertising have been contested. For example, marketing professor Charles R Taylor has taken ethical issue with the Gillette campaign – which was pilloried on social media and became one of the most ‘disliked’ videos ever uploaded to YouTube16 – not because the company failed its shareholders, but because, in his view, it failed its customers: Gillette unnecessarily alienated a large number of loyal customers, some of whom had been buying its product for decades. In the following days in the media, Gillette did not express any regret towards those offended by the ad. I see a significant ethical issue with this in that if one is to believe a company cares about society as a whole, one would think that that company would care about people who had spent large sums of money on their product over long periods of time.17 Like the Gillette ad, the Nike campaign was also met with vitriol, with customers filming themselves destroying and defacing
Screen Education 97 I © ATOM
obvious social good.13 In the context of the Friedman doctrine, it doesn’t make sense to judge ‘woke’ advertising as ethical or otherwise on the grounds of potential social impact, but rather to assess these campaigns only in terms of whether or not they increase profits and provide value for shareholders. While the affective character of this new wave of advertising complicates the question of whether it constitutes a counterexample to the Friedman doctrine, some corporate advertising is much more directly linked to material change. ‘Fair trade’ certification schemes, which originated in coffee production and exploded during the 1990s, are perhaps the best-known example of this: brands advertise their participation in trading practices that do not exploit producers, who are often located in the global South. In some cases, this signalling of ethical behaviour is the basis of the brand itself, while in others – those involving large multinationals, in particular – the promotion of ethical practices is an attempt to shift public perception away from a negative view. For example, in the 1990s, Nike itself promoted a shift towards transparency and change in response to decades of criticism over the company’s sweatshop-labour practices.14 However, even in these cases it is difficult not to apply the cynical logic of the Friedman doctrine and see Nike’s behaviour as a response to public outcry and the threat of lower profits. Further, the extent of companies’ commitment to these campaigns is often in question: in the years since the company’s attempts to clean up its
51
THIS SPREAD, L–R: Heineken’s ‘Worlds Apart’ commercial; Pepsi’s ‘Live for Now’ ad
Screen Education 97 I © ATOM
52
the company’s products.18 But despite their similarities, the Nike campaign was widely considered to have been a success, while Gillette took a significant financial hit in the months that followed.19 Other campaigns have suffered similar backlash, including, notably, the 2017 Pepsi ad ‘Live for Now’ – featuring reality-TV star Kendall Jenner defusing tensions at what looks very much like a Black Lives Matter protest by offering a police officer a can of Pepsi – which was deemed by many to be disingenuous and insensitive, and was quickly pulled from circulation.20 As the reaction to the Pepsi ad indicates, the success or failure of a campaign can depend significantly on how consumers perceive the authenticity of the corporation’s positioning. Mirzaei argues that one of the key differences between the Nike and Gillette ads is that the former was able to capitalise on a perceived history of caring about racial inequality, such that they could utilise a woke advertising strategy for short-term profit. For a company without that history, like Gillette, on the other hand, a successful ‘woke’ advertising strategy would need to be long-term – in essence, an investment in building up the perceived authenticity that Nike was able to capitalise on more immediately. As Mirzaei puts it: ‘To what extent are brands prepared to sacrifice profit? At this stage we can say mostly [that companies producing socially aware advertising campaigns] have postponed their profit to the long-term.’ As such, these campaigns are effectively about reputation management; building a relationship with a potential customer base through ‘ethical’ messaging serves to associate a brand with issues consumers may feel positively about. Nonetheless, ads such as these can achieve more than simply boosting companies’ bottom line or reputation. Pointing to corporate support of marriage equality in Australia as an example, University of Melbourne management and marketing academic Ben Neville argues that, rather than being at odds with social change, ‘woke’ advertising rooted in profit motive and shareholder ethics can actually be a useful tool for achieving positive social outcomes: [Companies] were clear about stating the business benefits for supporting marriage equality. This is partly because legally they are [accountable to their shareholders]. But it was probably
also the only message that may have got through to a conservative government. While it’s difficult to quantify precisely what impact these endorsements had on the eventual ‘yes’ vote in the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey,21 Neville’s view has been shared by marriage-equality advocates, who argue that the advocacy of
These campaigns are effectively about reputation management; building a relationship with a potential customer base through ‘ethical’ messaging serves to associate a brand with issues consumers may feel positively about. ‘corporate Australia’ played a key role in the campaign’s success.22 ANZ’s ‘#holdtight’ campaign was a very visible example, but many other companies issued similar messages; advocacy group the Equality Campaign claimed support from over 600 corporations, including David Jones, eBay and Medibank. However, it is worth noting that few of these expressions of corporate support corresponded to financial donations.23
‘woke’ advertising could be considered an elegant – if cynical – solution to the problem of the ethical consumption gap. In the realm of ‘woke’ advertising, a consumer doesn’t even need to make purchasing choices that are actually ethical; rather, they simply need to align their identity with a brand that makes them feel like ethical people. Despite all of this, Neville is unwilling to wholly write ‘woke’ advertising off as a tool for achieving genuine social change. For him, the key factor is motive: We can only judge motives by viewing consistent behaviour in varied contexts with different pressures, where too much pressure or too many inducements test the authenticity of the motives. So, what have Gillette done since? Is it then part of a larger, consistent campaign that demonstrates that it is an authentic position? While he stops short of imagining that socially aware advertising can be a catalyst for revolution, Neville views its transformative potential in softer terms: In terms of sustaining capitalism, I think the structural changes needed would result in a fair and sustainable capitalism. So [advertising like this] could be part of the transition to a better capitalism, rather than an impediment to overthrowing capitalism for some other authoritarian, communistic system. Regardless of whether ‘woke’ advertising has the potential to effect genuine social change, it seems likely that the approach is here to stay. While campaigns like Gillette’s and Pepsi’s ended in public-relations disasters and, in the case of Gillette, a massive loss in share value, corporations are learning lessons from these failures about how to do ‘woke’ advertising more effectively. In the case of Nike’s Kaepernick-fronted ad – perhaps the gold standard
Screen Education 97 I © ATOM
A further question is the impact advertising can have not only on the social awareness of consumers, but on consumption itself. Neville argues that ‘woke’ advertising campaigns are about engaging with consumers ‘in a postmodern, post-religious world where many find their meaning and define their identity through their consumption’ – in other words, this kind of advertising is less about consumers making genuine social change through their engagement with a brand than it is about how their engagement with the brand helps them define their values. To explain why these campaigns resonate with consumers, Neville describes an ‘ethical political gap’: ‘I want the world to be better so I buy Nike shoes, but I don’t go on the streets to protest or run for government, where I could actually make a meaningful difference. It’s more like slacktivism, maybe “consumptivism”.’ In a paper Neville co-authored in the journal Marketing Theory, he and fellow authors Michal Jemma Carrington and Detlev Zwick argue that the promotion of ‘ethical consumption’ itself is a key mechanism for maintaining harmful and exploitative capitalist structures. The paper describes the ways marketing research frames the idea of the ‘ethical consumption gap’ (a more specific formulation of the ‘ethical political gap’) as a problem with consumer behaviour – that is, while we as consumers like to think of ourselves as ethical, we consistently ‘fail’ to make purchases in line with that self-conception. So, for example, I might like the idea of buying environmentally friendly cleaning products, but it doesn’t mean I actually do it. Carrington, Zwick and Neville make the case that the very idea of an ethical consumption gap as a problem to be solved actually only serves to prop up capitalism: by keeping us focused on the logic of capitalism as a solution to the problems of capitalism, this construct ignores the structural forces that have constrained our individual choices in the first place.24 By promoting the idea of the ‘ethical consumer’ as an identity rather than ‘ethical consumption’ as a necessary series of actions,
53
effects of those discussions are not always clear. But on the other, as Neville argues, the capitalist logic of woke advertising may also serve to inhibit genuine political action. As the line between corporate messaging and political discourse continues to blur, the tools to critically engage with this new era of advertising will only become more necessary. Benjamin Riley is a freelance writer and journalist based in Sydney, writing about politics, HIV, queerness, masculinity and mental health. Benjamin previously worked as Victorian editor for national LGBTI newspaper Star Observer, and he co-hosts and produces Queers, a podcast about critical queer politics. SE
Endnotes See Ross Douthat, ‘The Rise of Woke Capital’, The New York Times, 28 February 2018, <https://www.nytimes. com/2018/02/28/opinion/corporate-america-activism.html>, accessed 5 December 2019. 2 ‘Nike Releases Full Ad Featuring Colin Kaepernick’, YouTube, 7 September 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= -grjIUWKoBA>, accessed 5 December 2019. 3 See Vann R Newkirk II, ‘No Country for Colin Kaepernick’, The Atlantic, 11 August 2017, <https://www.theatlantic. com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/no-country-for-colin -kaepernick/536340/>, accessed 5 December 2019. 4 ‘We Believe: The Best Men Can Be | Gillette (Short Film)’, YouTube, 13 January 2019, <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0>, accessed 5 December 2019. 5 See David Griner, ‘Nike’s Kaepernick Ad Immediately Sparks Outrage, Adoration and Satire’, Adweek, 4 September 2018, <https://www.adweek.com/creativity/nikes-kaepernick-ad -immediately-sparks-outrage-adoration-and-satire/>; and Tiffany Hsu, ‘Gillette Ad with a #MeToo Edge Attracts Support and Outrage’, The New York Times, 15 January 2019, <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/business/gillette-ad -men.html>, both accessed 9 December 2019. 6 ‘2014: Always Unveils Groundbreaking “Like a Girl” Campaign’, The Drum, 31 March 2016, <https://www.thedrum.com/news/ 2016/03/31/2014-always-unveils-groundbreaking-girl-campaign>, accessed 14 January 2020. 7 Lisa Marie Segarra, ‘Heineken Ad Pairs Up Strangers with Opposing Views on Transgender Rights, Climate Change and Feminism’, Time, 27 April 2017, <https://time.com/4757540/ heineken-ad-worlds-apart-commercial/>, accessed 14 January 2020. 8 Sam Byford, ‘Airbnb’s Super Bowl Ad Says “We Accept” Everyone’, The Verge, 5 February 2017, <https://www.theverge. com/2017/2/5/14517708/airbnb-super-bowl-ad-donation-aid>, accessed 14 January 2020. 9 The term ‘woke’, originally employed within African-American activist circles, refers to a state of being aware of societal injustice; see Charles Pulliam-Moore, ‘How “Woke” Went from Black Activist Watchword to Teen Internet Slang’, Splinter, 8 January 2016, <https://splinternews.com/how-woke-went -from-black-activist-watchword-to-teen-int-1793853989>, accessed 9 December 2019. 10 See Marc Bain, ‘Nike Is Facing a New Wave of Anti-sweatshop Protests’, Quartz, 1 August 2017, <https://qz.com/1042298/ nike-is-facing-a-new-wave-of-anti-sweatshop-protests/>, accessed 5 December 2019. 1
for a big-budget, high-profile advertising campaign of this kind – the months following its launch saw the company’s share value hit an all-time high, adding US$6 billion to its value.25 Mirzaei argues it isn’t just corporations that are learning more from these experiments in woke advertising, but that shareholders themselves are learning to trust the strategy: All the stakeholders, including shareholders, […] have learned the lesson that this is more like a long-term game, and they need to be patient and confident and support the brand. While you might lose some consumers, you’re also gaining a massive customer base that [is] loyal to the brand. If these campaigns continue to survive by adapting the corporate logic of profitability, it will become increasingly important to understand the role they play in our collective political imagin ation. On one hand, Australia’s marriage-equality campaign demonstrated the usefulness of corporate support in achieving a ‘progressive’ political outcome; similarly, many of these ‘woke’ advertisements have prompted genuine discussion about important social and political issues, even if the longer-term, material
54
THIS SPREAD, CLOCKWISE FROM BOTTOM LEFT: ‘The Best Men Can Be’; ‘Just Do It’; Airbnb’s ‘#weaccept’ campaign
Backlash’, News.com.au, 23 August 2019, <https://www.news. com.au/finance/business/media/we-will-continue-to-represent -men-at-their-best-gillettes-backflip-after-toxic-masculinity -backlash/news-story/8ae70a5abc31280fc23711dcf7c30e5e>, accessed 9 December 2019. 20 Daniel Victor, ‘Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter’, The New York Times, 5 April 2017, <https:// www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/business/kendall-jenner -pepsi-ad.html>, accessed 9 December 2019. 21 See Paul Karp, ‘Australia Says Yes to Same-sex Marriage in Historic Postal Survey’, The Guardian, 15 November 2017, <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/15/ australia-says-yes-to-same-sex-marriage-in-historic-postal -survey>, accessed 9 December 2019. 22 See Alex Greenwich & Janine Middleton, ‘Australian People and Companies Led the Way on Marriage Equality, and Now It’s Time for Parliament to Deliver’, Business Insider Australia, 20 November 2017, <https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ australian-marriage-equality-leadership-2017-11>, accessed 9 December 2019. 23 See Paul Karp, ‘Marriage Equality: Lots of Support but Little Funding from Corporate Australia’, The Guardian, 2 September 2017, <https://www.theguardian.com/australia -news/2017/sep/02/marriage-equality-lots-of-support-but -little-funding-from-corporate-australia>, accessed 14 January 2020. 24 Michal Jemma Carrington, Detlev Zwick & Benjamin Neville, ‘The Ideology of the Ethical Consumption Gap’, Marketing Theory, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016, pp. 21–38. The ethical consumption gap is also an example of philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony; see Nicki Lisa Cole, ‘What Is Cultural Hegemony?’, ThoughtCo, updated 6 January 2020, <https://www.thoughtco.com/cultural -hegemony-3026121>, accessed 14 January 2020. 25 Renae Reints, ‘Colin Kaepernick Pushes Nike’s Market Value Up $6 Billion, to an All-time High’, Fortune, 23 September 2018, <https://fortune.com/2018/09/23/nike-market-value -colin-kaepernick-ad/>, accessed 9 December 2019.
Screen Education 97 I © ATOM
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962, p. 133. 12 See, for example, Enrique Dans, ‘Friedman’s Dictum Is Finally Laid to Rest: So What’s the Function of Companies Now?’, Forbes, 22 August 2019, <https://www.forbes.com/ sites/enriquedans/2019/08/22/friedmans-dictum-is-finally -laid-to-rest-so-whats-the-function-of-companies-now/>, accessed 9 December 2019. 13 Steve Denning, ‘The Origin of “the World’s Dumbest Idea”: Milton Friedman’, Forbes, 26 June 2013, <https://www.forbes. com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-origin-of-the-worlds -dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/>, accessed 9 December 2019. 14 See Max Nisen, ‘Why the Bangladesh Factory Collapse Would Never Have Happened to Nike’, Business Insider Australia, 10 May 2013, <https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5?r=US&IR=T>, accessed 14 January 2020. 15 See Bain, op. cit.; and Matthew Kish, ‘Reports Find Wage Theft, Verbal Abuse, Forced Overtime at Nike Contract Factory’, Portland Business Journal, 14 December 2016, <https://www. bizjournals.com/portland/news/2016/12/13/reports-find-wage -theft-verbal-abuse-forced.html>, accessed 14 January 2020. 16 See Shay McHale, ‘Balls of Glass: Masculinity and the Media’, Reporter Magazine, 5 March 2019, <https://reporter. rit.edu/views/balls-glass-masculinity-and-media>, accessed 9 December 2019. 17 Charles R Taylor, ‘Taylor’s Theorem Part II: Advice for Socially Responsible Advertisers’, International Journal of Advertising, vol. 38, no. 1, 2019, p. 2, available at <https://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02650487.2019.1578483>, accessed 9 December 2019. 18 See Brett Samuels, ‘Nike Customers Destroy Products in Response to Kaepernick Ad Campaign’, The Hill, 4 September 2018, <https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing -room/404907-kaepernick-ad-campaign-prompts-customers -to-destroy-nike-products>, accessed 9 December 2019. 19 See Frank Chung, ‘“We Will Continue to Represent Men at Their Best”: Gillette’s Backflip After “Toxic Masculinity” 11
55