In today’s rapidly changing consumer landscape, brands that appeal to men are becoming more diverse and nuanced. Once relegated to stereotypical portrayals of masculinity—often consisting of aggressive advertising and exaggerated portrayals of “manliness”—men’s brands are now being called to redefine what it means to market to men. The trend toward emotional intelligence, mental health awareness, sustainability, and inclusivity is forcing these brands to reconsider how they approach PR and their public image.
Public relations (PR) plays a significant role in shaping the perception of any brand. For men’s brands, it’s no different. However, when PR strategies fail, they can leave brands in a precarious position, sometimes even damaging their reputation for good. As the expectations of modern men evolve, brands that fail to adapt to these changing norms risk becoming irrelevant.
This essay examines some of the significant lifestyle PR failures of men’s brands and why they missed the mark, often focusing on emotional detachment, misguided target demographics, and tone-deaf campaigns. By analyzing these failures, we can better understand the challenges that brands face when trying to connect with the modern man and how they can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
The Illusion of Strength and Emotionless Masculinity: The Case of Gillette
One of the most notable PR fails in recent years is the backlash against Gillette’s “The Best Men Can Be” campaign, which launched in 2019. The razor brand, which has long been associated with traditional masculine ideals, attempted to pivot toward a more progressive, socially conscious message. The campaign was intended to tackle toxic masculinity, calling out bullying, harassment, and sexist behavior, while encouraging men to “be better” in their relationships and interactions.
At first glance, this was a brilliant move—Gillette was aiming to tap into the cultural conversation around gender norms and modern masculinity. In a world where younger generations are increasingly concerned with social justice, mental health, and inclusivity, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to take a stand.
However, the response was anything but positive. Men felt alienated by the campaign’s message, which seemed to suggest that their very identity—one traditionally associated with ruggedness, toughness, and independence—was under attack. Many viewers felt as though the campaign patronized them and labeled them as perpetrators of toxic masculinity rather than offering a nuanced solution.
The campaign’s tone was also a misstep. While the issue it addressed was undoubtedly important, the tone-deaf execution alienated Gillette’s core audience, the very men it sought to engage. What should have been a thoughtful exploration of masculinity in transition turned into an accusatory, finger-pointing message that left many men feeling attacked and misunderstood.
Moreover, the campaign failed to capture the complexity of modern masculinity. While it sought to engage men on an emotional level, it did so in a way that came across as overly simplistic. It assumed that men’s experiences with toxic masculinity were one-dimensional, reducing them to a stereotype rather than offering them a chance to join the conversation in a meaningful way.
Instead of being celebrated for its progressive stance, Gillette found itself embroiled in a public relations nightmare, losing both loyal customers and potential new ones who felt the brand was out of touch with their needs. The backlash was swift and severe, with many men taking to social media to criticize the brand for failing to understand the nuances of masculinity in the modern age.
In hindsight, Gillette’s attempt to modernize its image through PR fell flat because it ignored the core needs of its demographic. By assuming all men fit into a narrow mold of toxic masculinity, the brand failed to capture the complexity of how men view themselves today. A better approach would have been to engage with men directly and create a campaign that invited them into the conversation about masculinity, rather than trying to dictate what “good” masculinity looked like.
The Pitfall of Stereotyping: The Abercrombie & Fitch Backlash
Abercrombie & Fitch is another example of a men’s brand that faced significant PR challenges, primarily due to its reliance on outdated stereotypes. Known for its image of the “perfect male body,” the brand initially gained popularity in the 1990s and early 2000s by marketing to a young, affluent, and predominantly white demographic. The brand’s image was built on the idea of the “ideal” male—tall, muscular, and often shirtless—posing in provocative ads aimed at creating a desire for the unattainable.
However, as society began to shift toward body positivity and inclusivity, Abercrombie & Fitch’s rigid, exclusionary image became increasingly outdated. The brand’s aggressive PR campaigns focused on promoting a very specific, unrealistic body type—one that alienated many potential customers. This created a growing perception that Abercrombie & Fitch’s PR strategies were more about exclusion than inclusion, and its brand image became synonymous with elitism and body-shaming.
In 2013, Abercrombie & Fitch’s former CEO Mike Jeffries made headlines for his controversial comments about the brand’s target demographic. He revealed that Abercrombie only marketed to “cool, good-looking people,” while excluding those who didn’t fit a certain image. His remarks only fueled the public’s growing disdain for the brand, and the backlash was swift. The brand’s PR strategy, which had once worked so well for it, became a massive liability. In the wake of the controversy, Abercrombie & Fitch faced declining sales, store closures, and a tarnished reputation.
The failure of Abercrombie & Fitch’s PR strategy stemmed from its commitment to a narrow, exclusive vision of masculinity. By failing to embrace diversity and inclusion, the brand alienated a significant portion of its potential customer base. What should have been a brand focused on personal style and expression instead became a symbol of toxic beauty standards and exclusion.
In response to the backlash, Abercrombie & Fitch began to evolve, gradually shifting toward more inclusive marketing. They started to feature diverse body types, ethnicities, and gender expressions in their campaigns. However, the damage had already been done. The PR failure was too significant, and despite their best efforts to rebrand, Abercrombie & Fitch has never fully regained its previous standing.
Ignoring the New Norms of Sustainability: The Diesel Controversy
Diesel, the Italian fashion brand known for its bold, edgy style, is another example of a men’s brand whose PR strategy failed to resonate with the modern consumer. In 2017, Diesel launched a campaign titled “Go with the Flaw,” which celebrated imperfection and flaws as a form of self-expression. The ad, featuring models with physical scars, was initially well-received for its attempt to challenge conventional beauty standards.
However, Diesel’s PR fail came later, when the company attempted to introduce a line of eco-friendly jeans. Despite the brand’s previous efforts to highlight sustainability, Diesel’s marketing strategy felt hollow when they launched their new product without enough transparency about its environmental impact. Diesel’s “sustainability” claims were met with skepticism, as their PR failed to deliver a clear and tangible message about how the brand was contributing to environmental causes.
Furthermore, Diesel’s eco-friendly jeans, which were priced at an exorbitant rate, did not align with the brand’s core image of “affordability meets high-end fashion.” The disconnect between Diesel’s previous messaging about rebellious self-expression and the high cost of their eco-friendly line made the entire initiative feel inauthentic. Customers questioned whether Diesel was genuinely committed to sustainability or merely jumping on a bandwagon to capitalize on a growing trend.
The Diesel PR disaster serves as a reminder of the importance of authenticity in the modern marketplace. Today’s consumers, especially younger generations, demand transparency from brands about their environmental and social practices. Diesel’s failure to provide clear, convincing evidence of their commitment to sustainability led to widespread skepticism. In this case, the brand’s PR team fell short of addressing the growing importance of sustainable fashion and instead created confusion that ultimately hindered the success of the campaign.
The Misstep of Traditional Masculinity in the Digital Age: The Case of H&M’s “Coolest Monkey” Hoodie
One of the most notorious PR failures in recent history involves the Swedish fast-fashion retailer H&M. In 2018, H&M released an image of a young black boy wearing a hoodie with the slogan “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” written across the front. The image was quickly met with outrage on social media, with many accusing H&M of being racially insensitive and tone-deaf.
Although H&M apologized and pulled the product from shelves, the damage to its reputation was significant. The incident revealed a fundamental flaw in the brand’s PR strategy: the inability to adapt to a changing cultural landscape where diversity and inclusivity are paramount. The hoodie’s release reflected outdated, racially insensitive stereotypes that, in today’s climate, were seen as offensive and inappropriate.
H&M’s PR response was swift, but the controversy exposed a deeper issue: a failure to understand the nuances of the modern global consumer. H&M had misjudged the importance of diversity and cultural awareness in its marketing strategy, resulting in widespread condemnation. In this case, H&M’s failure was not just about one poorly executed campaign, but a broader oversight of how much the landscape for marketing to men—and all consumers—has evolved.
The lifestyle PR failures discussed above share a common theme: a lack of understanding and engagement with the modern, multifaceted man. As expectations shift, men’s brands that fail to evolve with these changes risk alienating their audience, damaging their reputation, and losing relevance. Brands must be mindful of the complexities of masculinity, embracing the diversity of men’s experiences, identities, and interests rather than relying on outdated stereotypes.
Successful PR strategies in the future must reflect the values of inclusivity, authenticity, sustainability, and emotional connection. Men’s brands can no longer afford to ignore the demands of modern consumers for transparency, diversity, and a deeper connection to the brand’s mission.
Ultimately, the key takeaway from these PR missteps is the importance of understanding your audience and staying attuned to their values, needs, and concerns. Brands that fail to do so risk becoming irrelevant in an increasingly competitive market where consumer trust and loyalty are harder to come by.
