I think it was poorly done. It came off as an assault on men, seemingly proposing exclusion for those that buy into the ideology. Funny enough, dollar shave club had an absolutely delightful ad that was way more effective at preaching inclusion AND selling razors.

The basic message that men should strive to be their best, is one I have personally championed for a very long time.
As some one who runs a swordfighting club(the way of the warrior, to me, is to a large degree about cultivating the positive masculine), and I like to think I have a positive part(however small) to play in helping young men to be good men, as a father of two sons, fatherhood is also of course of major importance to me, and in general just being someone who has, from a very young age, strongly respected not only both the masculine and the feminine principles, but being a man, the masculine is of course particularly very important to me, masculinity has always been something that I have deeply admired, respected, honoured and strived for, in my own way.

The basic message of the ad is ok, but the tone and delivery seems a bit off, especially given the context of the media as a whole in regards to these matters, particularly over the last few years.
Saying that men should "strive to be their best", is a great message, but that is a different message than "men can be better".
Unfortunately, many men felt that the latter is the overall feel of the Gillette ad, and not the former.
The first one implies that you are inherently good and are capable of being your best.
The second that you are not good enough, that you need to be better.
When quite frankly, most men are already doing an amazing job and don't need that negativity.
There's all this talk about people wanting men to be more in touch with their feelings, but then when they voice their feelings, they are shot down and made fun of.
Not ideal for promoting what they claim they want to promote.

Let's have a little look at the ad, break it down a bit.
In the ad you have some footage from TV and film that are apparently about men objectifying women, yet, TV and film also have women do the exact same thing to men, it's usually light hearted, a joke, it's not a big deal, it has not promoted some wide spread systematic dehumanising of either women or men.

Some men ARE womanisers, some women ARE the female equivalent.
In film, villains commit all kinds of crimes of violence, murder, manipulation, we see some form of it in most films and entertainment, it doesn't mean people are going to see that and think it's ok to go around doing the same.
We see womanisers on TV and we know that it's not a positive attribute.
We see people on TV and in film with flaws, it makes them relatable, because we ALL have flaws.

Furthermore, the women in bikinis dancing in front of the camera, did so by their own free choice.
Many women are empowered by their attractiveness and like to show it off, and feel desired.
As do some men, in their own way of course, but the same applies, some men like to go to the gym and get fit and many want to show off their chiselled bodies, and enjoy the attention and appreciation of the hard work they've put in to look like King Leonidas, Marvels Thor, or Conan the Barbarian.
Good on them!
Both sexes!
The beauty of the male and female forms should be mutually celebrated, not shunned.

Also in the ad there's the guy who sees a woman walk past who he apparently found attractive, so he goes to speak with her, but his mate stops him, "not cool", why?
What's so toxic about going and speaking with an attractive women?
This is sexual assault?
IF he was doing something wrong, what was it?
Was he going to rape her?
Was he going to stalk her?
Was he going to say something derogatory to her?
Was he already in a relationship and his mate was stopping him from pursuing an affair?
We don't know, it's not clear at all that he had bad intentions.
The ad makes nothing clear except that the man was going to walk in her general direction.
Maybe it was to respectfully ask if he could get to know her, for all we know.
Isn't that how people meet?

Then there's the two kids fighting at the barbecue/s(wtf is the go with everyone having a barbie each? Lol, can't they share? Jesus! Anyway, I digress lol)
Initially it seemed to me that the boys were just play fighting, because all the men were just standing there watching, and rough and tumble play is SUPER important for kids, especially boys, there is nothing wrong with play fighting, and it should not be discouraged.
But then, towards the end of the ad, one of the dad's parts the two boys and says something about not fighting, and I'm like, well, if the boys where actually fighting and not playing, why the freaking hell were the dad's just standing around watching in the first place?
Wtf?
That shit don't happen.
No dad's sit back and watch their son exchange blows with someone else's son and not try to stop it!
Who the hell are these people hanging with if they think that this is how men behave?

And what the hecking heck is wrong with the phrase "boys will be boys"?
Boys WILL be inclined to behave like boys.
Just like most girls are inclined to behave like girls.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Males from a young age statistically prefer certain toys like trucks for example.
Whereas equivalent age females statistically prefer dolls.
This is observed even in male and female monkeys.
Males tend to be more interested in things.
Females tend to be more interested in people.
That doesn't mean there's not a lot of overlap, we are after all, all humans lol.
But, Boys tend to be boys.
And Girls tend be girls.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Rape is NOT excused by "Boys will be boys" just as child alienation is NOT excused by "girls will be girls".
It's not on.
We all know this.
We are all taught this.
Both sexes, know that both those crimes are wrong.
SOME people still commit those crimes regardless, and they might have their own justifications for them, but that doesn't make them right, nor does that mean that anyone else supports their position, and it certainly doesn't mean that everyone thinks that way.

Then there's the guy who's "mansplaining" over the woman in the board meeting, well, yeah that sucks, but it also sucks when women do it too, and in my experience, these days we see way more women talking over men than the other way round.
Like all these things, you can't really call them toxic "masculinity", you can't lecture men and only men for something that both women and men do.
It's toxic PEOPLE who are the problem, not just toxic men.
Why is this whole toxic thing only directed at men?
If it's not all men, if it's only a small minority of men (which there certainly IS a small minority of toxic men, just as there is toxic women) then why make it out as if it's some huge widespread systematic problem that's infected everywhere?
And what difference is this virtue signalling going to make?
The arseholes are not going to watch the Gillette ad and go "Shit, they're right, I do need to change" they are going to be the ones ignoring this ad and moving on, just like they always do when people point out what they are doing is wrong.
I have met enough toxic people to know that for sure lol, male AND female.
The only people who this ad impacts, are the conscientious men, the men who aren't the ones that are the problem.
And with male suicides through the roof, we don't need more man bashing.
It's bad enough with the whole biased domestic violence portrayal of men as the perps and women as the victims.
When most DV is mutual, and there are many MANY male victims of DV, and that's without going into child alienation and other forms of abuse mostly perpetrated by women, all of which gets ignored by the media, again, adding to the whole, men are born arseholes, and women are superior theme.
Why is the media so hellbent on ramming all of this down everyone's throats?
Why only toxic masculinity and not toxic femininity?
Especially when it is not balanced with any positive stuff?
There is plenty of positive stuff for the appreciation of, and the recognition of, and the encouragement of women, and that's great, truly, it is pure awesomeness!
But where is the media on the appreciation for and the encouragment of good men?
Respectful men, Loyal men, Brave men, hard working men?
Wheres the positive model?
And why are they not balancing it with the equal criticism of toxic femininity?
Why does that NEVER get talked about?
It's as much a problem as toxic masculinity, I reckon it's half the problem.
You can't fix "toxic masculinity" unless you simultaneously also address "toxic femininity", because they feed each other.
If it's so important that society has this discussion, which IT IS, then we NEED to be able to discuss ALL the factors.
The hypocrisy of it all makes for a poor moral highground.

The problem will never be solved whilst everyone is only looking at one side, AND IT DOESNT MATTER WHICH SIDE THAT IS!
Because each "side" is only a half of a whole.
Men are half the problem, and women are equally the other half of the problem.
And the "us versus them" mentality creates a vicious cycle of reciprocal mutual toxicity.
Until the problem is addressed equally, until we can equally criticise both genders for their part, and praise both for their strengths.
Then each "side" is just going to continue to feel attacked and they will continue to feel that only their side has it right.

Hot take: this has nothing to do with profit or pandering or being "progressive", the sole purpose is social engineering.

I am a fan of giving my money to a razor company while being morally chastised by those who have claim to unearned moral virtue.

Well, first, one quick point in passing. I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with being masculine, and the only 'men' who criticize it are the masculinity-deficient.

But, what really perplexes me is how giant corporations that once bent over backwards to avoid offending any segment of their clientele, now seem purpose-driven to insult half (or in Gillette's case, the majority) of their customers. It's truly odd that CEOs who put personal ideology above corporate performance and shareholder returns, rise through the ranks and are approved by boards of directors one would assume are made up of responsible professionals. Anyone have any insight on this phenomenon?

I was less than impressed. I think it's often overlooked that the same things that are now considered a problem with masculinity are also traits that have advanced civilization to its current state. Whether this is rough play forming a dominance hierarchy, the natural tendency for men to take initiative when meeting a mate, or even the tendency toward stoicism and maintaining skin of a certain thickness, these are some of the things that have led to our present society and what we consider to be civilization. To ignore that is to ignore all of the accomplishments we've made since we first started traveling in tribes.

In a way, I suppose the core message was that as men, we could do better. This is absolutely true. However, changes that target some of the most basic things that make a man a man, they need to come about organically. You can't simply issue some edict and all of a sudden half of the population suddenly says, "oh my gosh! I can't believe I had it so wrong." Gradual improvement over time is the only thing that has shown any real efficacy in altering things at a deeply profound level.

How long did it take us to stop treating women as inferior or trying to outright own other people?

It's to simplistic. Some of the things portrayed in the ad as "toxic masculinity" are basic building blocks of society and culture. Thats not to say that men have no room to improve as a whole but to attack instinct won't do it.