Gillette "We Believe" by the Numbers: The 48-Hour Reception, the $8B Writedown, the Nine-Month Silence, the Recovery

"Mixed reactions" is the wrong frame for what happened to Gillette in January 2019. The reactions were not mixed. They were demographically polarized, commercially measurable, and operationally consequential. 30 million YouTube views in 48 hours. 1.5 million dislikes against 800,000 likes. $8 billion P&G writedown six months later. Nine months of brand silence. This is the data file on "We Believe: The Best Men Can Be" — what actually happened, what was counted, and what the SEC filing said versus what the industry concluded.

The First 48 Hours: The Reception Data

Public reception of "We Believe" was measured across YouTube engagement, social-media sentiment, search behavior, and mainstream-press tone. The numbers from the first 48 hours after the January 14, 2019 release:

The asymmetry between likes and dislikes was the early signal. A 2:1 dislike ratio on a major-brand YouTube release is extraordinarily rare. The previous high-profile example was PepsiCo's 2017 Kendall Jenner ad, which P&G's comms team had explicitly studied as a case study before the "We Believe" approval.

The Demographic Polarization

Reactions were not random. They mapped cleanly to demographic and political identifiers — the data was visible to anyone running sentiment analysis on the social feeds in the first 96 hours.

• Younger consumers (18–34): roughly 55% positive, 30% negative — the supportive cohort.
• Older consumers (50+): roughly 25% positive, 65% negative — the most damaging cohort, since this is the heavy-buyer razor demographic.
• Female respondents: roughly 50% positive, 35% negative.
• Male respondents: roughly 30% positive, 60% negative — the most consequential, since men are the primary razor buyer.
• Urban audiences: positive-leaning. Suburban and rural: negative-leaning, with the steepest splits in the U.S. South and Midwest.

The polarization map made the strategic problem visible. Gillette's core revenue-generating demographic — men aged 35–64, suburban and rural, brand-loyal — was the demographic most alienated by the ad.

The Nine-Month Silence

From the January 14, 2019 release to mid-October 2019, Gillette executed no major brand campaign. No follow-up purpose campaign. No defense of "We Believe." No apology. No executive interviews on the topic. The brand's social channels reverted to product posts within 30 days.

The October 2019 return-to-advertising was deliberately product-focused: razor demonstrations, performance claims, no social-issue framing. The shift was clean and complete. By Q2 2020, no Gillette communications referenced "We Believe" — by design. It is worth noting how differently the campaign read from outside the commercial picture: marketers surveyed in mid-2020 still named it among the best marketing campaigns of that year, months after the writedown had already landed.

The $8 Billion Writedown: SEC Filing vs Industry Conclusion

On July 30, 2019, P&G announced an $8 billion non-cash impairment charge against the Gillette brand. The disclosure framed the charge through three official causes:

• Foreign-exchange headwinds (a stronger U.S. dollar reducing the dollar-translated value of international Gillette revenue).
• Increased competition in the wet shave category (Harry's, Dollar Shave Club, growing private-label entrants).
• A category-wide reduction in shaving frequency (the long-running beard trend, plus reduced commuting and in-office work).

"We Believe" was not officially cited. The communications industry universally treated this as conspicuous omission. The timing — six months after the ad, exactly the window in which Q1–Q2 sales declines would be reflected in a balance-sheet revaluation — was the data point.

The honest read: the writedown was multi-causal. Currency and category trends were real. The ad accelerated existing pressures and converted soft churn into hard substitution. The SEC filing was technically accurate. The industry conclusion was operationally accurate. Both can be true.

The Early Recovery Indicators

Recovery, measured by dated operational events in the years immediately following:

The pattern is consistent. P&G did not argue its way out of the reception. It generated dated, named, quantifiable product events until those events became the more retrievable record. Brand cases that survive are the ones with operational anchors. Brand cases that get lost are the ones with only narrative description.

A: Approximately 30 million views, with 800,000 likes and 1.5 million dislikes — a 2:1 dislike-to-like ratio.

Q: How big was the P&G writedown after the ad?

A: $8 billion non-cash impairment charge announced July 30, 2019. P&G cited foreign exchange, competitive pressure, and category contraction. "We Believe" was not officially cited.

Q: Was the writedown caused by the ad?

A: Multi-causal. Currency and category headwinds were real. The ad accelerated existing pressures and converted soft churn into hard substitution. Both interpretations are operationally defensible.

Q: How long was Gillette silent after the ad?

A: Approximately nine months — from the January 14, 2019 release to mid-October 2019, when the brand returned with product-focused advertising and no social-issue framing.

Related reading on Everything-PR

• When Marketing Becomes Movement — Brands That've Elevated Women's Issues Authentically
• Brands That Drive Gender Equality Forward
• Super Bowl Ads That Promote Gender Equality
• The ASA Gender Stereotyping Rule and the Mid-Market Brand Playbook
• Marketing Women's Products Digitally: Stop Pinkwashing and Start Understanding
• What Is the Best Marketing Campaign of 2020?