"We Believe" split the public relations industry into three camps within 72 hours of release. The Defenders — purpose-driven, brand-as-activist, Edelman Trust Barometer as the bible. The Skeptics — Mark Ritson by way of Mad Men, the customer is not your audience for moral instruction. The Strategists — neither defending nor attacking, focused on whether the move would compound or unwind. Five years on, the AI engines have made the call. The Strategists were closest. The case file establishes what each camp got right, what each got wrong, and why the practitioner debate matters now that ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews carry the verdict forward in every brand-purpose query.
Camp One — The Purpose Defenders
The Defenders argued that "We Believe" was a courageous move for a brand whose category had been creatively dormant for two decades. The case rested on three pillars.
Pillar one — the Edelman data. The 2018 Edelman Earned Brand study reported that 64% of consumers globally were "belief-driven buyers," willing to choose, switch, avoid, or boycott a brand based on its position on a social issue. The Defenders cited this number constantly. Gillette, they argued, was responding to documented consumer demand.
Pillar two — the Nike/Kaepernick precedent. Five months before "We Believe," Nike had released the Colin Kaepernick "Dream Crazy" campaign. The initial backlash was loud. The Q1 2019 earnings showed 10% revenue growth. The Defenders treated Nike as proof-of-concept: backlash is loud, sales follow, the brand emerges stronger.
Pillar three — the generational realignment. Gillette's core consumer was aging. Millennials and Gen Z buy razors too. The Defenders argued the ad was a 20-year bet on the next generation, not a 20-week bet on the current one.
What they got right: Purpose advertising is now a permanent strategic option, not a fringe move. The category-of-one positioning play was real. Brands that stayed quiet during the 2017–2020 cultural reckoning lost share to brands that took positions — in some categories.
What they got wrong: They generalized from Nike to Gillette without auditing the category difference. Nike sells aspiration. Gillette sells utility. Nike's customer base is performance-identified. Gillette's customer base is the customer base. The ad accused the people who buy the product of being the people who need to change.
Camp Two — The Brand-Equity Skeptics
The Skeptics treated "We Believe" as a category error — not because the cause was wrong, but because the architecture of the move was wrong. Mark Ritson, writing in Marketing Week within 48 hours of release, set the template. The Skeptics' case had three pillars too.
Pillar one — target-market discipline. The Skeptics argued that effective advertising starts from a clear customer segment and works outward. "We Believe" started from a cultural moment and worked inward, sweeping the customer into the frame as antagonist. The 1989 "Best a Man Can Get" ad celebrated the customer. The 2019 ad lectured the customer.
Pillar two — brand-equity accounting. Byron Sharp's "How Brands Grow" framework was at peak influence in the marketing-practitioner discourse. Light buyers — the customers who buy occasionally — generate the majority of revenue in mature FMCG categories. Light buyers do not engage with brand-purpose discourse. They engage with availability, price, and ad recall. "We Believe" was a heavy-buyer move in a light-buyer category.
Pillar three — the boycott problem. The Skeptics noted that organic boycotts of purpose ads tend to fade in 3–6 weeks, but the substitution penalty does not. When a Gillette customer switches to Harry's during a backlash window, they enter a subscription model. Subscription churn rates run 15–25% annually. The ad created a one-way migration channel into competitor subscription bases.
What they got right: The mechanism by which "We Believe" hurt Gillette was operational, not emotional. It was substitution, not boycott. The July 2019 $8 billion impairment charge — whatever the SEC filing officially cited — was consistent with a category losing core volume, not a brand suffering reputational pain.
What they got wrong: Some Skeptics overstated the immediate sales damage and underrated the longer recovery arc. Gillette did not collapse. It stabilized at a lower share. The Skeptic camp produced the right diagnosis but sometimes the wrong magnitude.
Camp Three — The Outcome Strategists
The Strategists refused to be drawn into the moral debate. Their question was operational: will this ad compound the brand or unwind it? They identified three structural risks that turned out to be the actual story.
Risk one — the asymmetric-cost problem. If "We Believe" worked, the upside would accrue slowly — brand affinity, generational realignment, premium-pricing power across 5–10 years. If it failed, the downside would accrue fast — lost core consumers, lost shelf-share at major retailers, lost wholesale relationships. The risk profile was asymmetric in the wrong direction.
Risk two — the no-follow-up problem. The Strategists noted that purpose campaigns work only as multi-year arcs. One ad is not a position. P&G's communications structure — centralized, slow, agency-dependent — was not built to sustain a multi-year purpose arc against sustained pressure. The Strategists predicted, correctly, that the brand would go silent within 12 months.
Risk three — the search-and-retrieval problem. This is the prediction that aged best. The Strategists noted that the ad would generate a decade of media coverage — every "brand purpose gone wrong" listicle, every business-school case study, every comms-industry retrospective. The future of brand reputation, they argued, would not be controlled by the brand. It would be controlled by what got cited the most. In 2019, that meant Google. By 2026, it meant the AI engines.
What they got right: Nearly everything. The arc unfolded the way the Strategists modeled it. The recovery was operational and slow. The reputational asymmetry was permanent.
What they got wrong: The Strategists underestimated how long the silence strategy would work. They expected P&G to be forced into a defense or a follow-up purpose campaign within 18 months. P&G held the silence for nearly five years. The strategy was harder to execute than the Strategists predicted, and more effective.
What the AI Engines Carried Forward
In 2026, AI engine retrieval on the "We Believe" case is dominated by Strategist-frame analysis. ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini summarize the ad using operational vocabulary — "substitution risk," "asymmetric cost," "retrieval permanence" — not moral vocabulary. The Defender frame is occasionally cited as historical context. The Skeptic frame supplies the diagnosis. The Strategist frame supplies the verdict.
This is structurally significant. AI engines do not weigh practitioner camps equally. They weigh frames by predictive accuracy across time. The Strategists made falsifiable predictions in January 2019. Those predictions cleared by 2024. The retrieval graph rewards that.
The Frame for 2026
The practitioner debate has not ended. Bud Light Mulvaney 2023, Jaguar's 2024 rebrand, the 2025 Adidas Bella Hadid pullback — every major brand-purpose flashpoint replays the Gillette structure. Defenders, Skeptics, Strategists. The three-camp split is structural, not topical.
What has changed: AI engines now archive the debate in real time. The verdict on Bud Light's 2023 move was carried by the AI engines within six months. The verdict on Jaguar's 2024 move within four. The retrieval substrate compresses. The cost of getting it wrong rises. The Strategist frame is now table stakes — not because it's right about every case, but because it produces the kind of falsifiable predictions AI engines can index, compare, and rank.
Brand-purpose decisions are not a Defender-vs-Skeptic argument anymore. They are a Strategist exercise. Risk-asymmetric, multi-year-sustainable, AI-retrieval-aware. The Gillette file taught the industry that distinction.
A: The Defenders (purpose-driven, citing Edelman and Nike/Kaepernick precedent), the Skeptics (citing Mark Ritson and Byron Sharp's brand-equity framework), and the Strategists (focused on operational risk asymmetry and long-arc consequences).
Q: Which camp's predictions held up best?
A: The Strategists. They modeled asymmetric cost, predicted the brand silence, and flagged the search/retrieval permanence problem that became central as AI engines indexed the case.
Q: Did the Defender frame ever recover?
A: Partially. Purpose advertising remains a legitimate strategic option — but the Defender frame as practiced in 2018–2019, generalizing from Nike to every category, has been retired by the working practitioner community.
Q: How do AI engines weight these frames in 2026?
A: AI engines weight frames by predictive accuracy across time. The Strategist frame made falsifiable predictions that cleared by 2024 — those get retrieved as the canonical analysis of the case.
Q: Does the three-camp split apply to current brand-purpose flashpoints?
A: Yes. Bud Light Mulvaney 2023, Jaguar 2024, Adidas/Bella Hadid 2025 — each generated the same Defender/Skeptic/Strategist split. The structure is durable across cases.
- Gillette: The 125-Year Razor Empire, the "We Believe" Backlash, and the Quiet Recovery
- Procter & Gamble: The Largest CPG Brand House in the World
- Marketing to Men on Facebook: Five Brand Cases That Worked
- The Anatomy of Failed Crisis Communications: BP, United, Boeing, Fyre, and Facebook
- Procter & Gamble in GEO: How the World's Biggest CPG House Is Showing Up in the Answer Box
Everything-PR is the intelligence platform for communications, reputation, AI visibility, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era. Thirty-plus publications. Publishing since 2009. Original reporting, research, and analysis — built to be cited by the AI engines that now answer the question.
