Gillette Inc. 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?

Gillette has, over time, sought to influence the life of men. It has presented itself not as a mere self-indulgent, but as a daily need, telling consumers that it has got their back and will get them whatever it is that they really desire. This has partly accounted for the company's continued success. However, three other factors have also had a hand in driving the company to success.

The first is the company's commitment to research and development, as well as product innovation. According to Michael Abbott, the marketing director at P&G, the company's ethos of supporting innovation is driven by an urge to develop products capable of meeting the ever-changing needs of men, and consequently transforming the life of the modern 21st century man (Socio, 2010). The company's innovation sphere is based on an element of understanding men, their skin, their shaving needs, and their shaving habits - an understanding brought about by intense and continued R&D geared at ensuring that products remain relevant to current users and appealing enough to newcomers (Socio, 2010). The force behind this has always been an attempt to meet the goal of delivering an ideal shave for customers - one that causes no skin irritation, but brings about optimal comfort and great closeness. In 1958, this meant developing the very first razor with an adjustable blade (whose adjustment properties increased the closeness of shave); the Trac 1 in 1971 (which reduced the number of strokes, thereby minimizing irritation); then the mighty Fusion (whose development, by the way, was based on the findings of an in-depth study of a sampled 10,000 men's shaving habits (Socio, 2010).

Then there is the tendency to take on the competition in a bid to prove value to customers. Gillette has not had the smoothest of rides. Its gradual addition-of-blades strategy has, for instance, often come under fire; with skeptics wondering whether having multiple blades makes the shaving experience any different....

Gillette has, however, always taken on its skeptics, at times referring to science in what often seems like a defense rather than a popularizing attempt. For instance, in explaining how multiple blades improve the shaving experience, Abbott makes use of the scientific process 'hysteresis' and demonstrates that "the first blade extends the hair cut of the hair follicle and allows the subsequent blade to cut further down the hair shaft before the hair has fully retracted back into the hair follicle," providing a shave that is not only long-lasting, but also characterized by less skin irritation (Socio, 2010).
Gillette manages to stay ahead of the competition through various strategies. As Abbott points out, "online is an important touch point for" the company (Socio, 2010). For instance, it offers online tutorials on among other things, how to handle acne and skin irritation, to supplement its marketing campaign, which obviously receives significant reinforcement from the company's outstanding association with sport personalities. The best example of such a tutorial is the YouTube video titled 'How to Shave your Groin', with according to the company, has been viewed by more than 6 million consumers. I have included the link to the video in the references section of this text.

Some of Gillette's spokespeople such as Tiger Woods have run into controversy after becoming endorsers for the brand. Does this hurt Gillette brand equity or marketing message?

Gillette is known for its outstanding association with sports and sporting personalities. The company's Champion Program engages such personalities in marketing brand programs, with large names in the sporting fraternity including Ji-Sung Park, Kenan Sofuoglu, Derek Jeter, Thierry Henry, Roger Federer, and Tiger Woods having featured in different marketing programs suited to their specific markets. The program often seeks to personify the various brands as brands of champions. Abbott, however, expresses that despite its long-time reliance on celebrity endorsements, the company is not blind to the risks posed by the same - "anything the ambassador does could potentially damage the brand"…