Grassroots anti-sexism movement Collective Shout is attempting to undermine a new Schick for Men advertising campaign they label sexist.
The campaign asks Schick customers to upload their Facebook profile photo onto a T-shirt and allows users to choose which female model will wear the mock-up of the shirt.
While sexist advertising has recently seen brand’s own customers lash out at companies, Schick is now bearing the brunt of Collective Shout’s supporters.
Supporters have flooded the Facebook competition page with feminist slogans that undermine the brand and they now outnumber ‘serious’ submissions.
Caitlin Roper from Collective Shout told SmartCompany the ad reinforced sexist ideas, including the notion that placing a profile picture on a headless woman saw her as blank canvas for men.
The competition runs in line with a new YouTube advertisement that features a woman ripping layers of T-shirts off to reveal a man shaving his face.
The ad ends with the girl pulling off the final T-shirt to reveal her bare chest covered by a prompt for viewers to “click here to see what happens next”.
The viewer is then redirected to another YouTube video where the woman walks around topless, with her breasts conveniently covered in the shot.
“The striptease video uses the allure of a topless woman, because how else would you sell men’s hygiene products?” says Roper.
“People say sex sells, sex doesn’t sell, sexually objectified images of women’s bodies sells,” says Roper.
She says, ultimately, Collective Shout want Schick to withdraw the campaign and steer away from objectifying women in their advertising.
She also said the campaign capitalises on the pornification of culture and assumes male customers will buy the product simply because they see breasts.
“It’s not just demeaning for women, it’s saying men are dumb,” says Roper.
“It’s not new, it’s not clever, it’s not creative and if they have to resort to that, it leads me to think they’re not confident in the quality of their product,” she says.
Schick Australia was contacted but SmartCompany had not received comment by the time of publication.