I rather like the Gillette ad, and as it would appear to be a legal requirement for everyone in the industry to have a point of view, and to make sure that everyone else knows what it is, here's mine. Actually, let me start over. I like the strategic thought behind the Gillette ad. (So does Jack Myers.) Maybe the execution is rather heavy-handed for some geographies -- a bit, well, American. (It's an American ad for goodness sakes.) But how can you not like the notion that men should behave better towards women, and towards those less fortunate or simply weaker than themselves? Is it somehow appropriate for Gillette or indeed anyone else to jump on this particular bandwagon? Why not? Why is it so dreadful for brands to stand for something, or to espouse a cause? What I find missing from much of the commentary is any sense that strategically this surely has to be a long-term endeavour. Aren't we all calling for brands to think about long-term benefits and effects and not just today's execution and tomorrow's sales?