Thank You, Greenpeace

Greenpeace has now joined in the Unilever conversation. Looks like Dove's use of palm oil is destroying rainforests in Indonesia. They say they have proof that Dove is causing forest destruction, species extinction and climate change (download their 82-page report on the subject here). Thanks to Charles Frith for pointing this out to me.




I hope this will renew the discussion of Unilever's impact on our world.

What I learned as a blogger

As a blogger on the subject of Dove vs. Axe, I learned a lot about Unilever. The Dove/Axe controversy began for me as a situation that captured my interest, but now that has changed. I learned that I, someone who is often described by terms such as “timid,” “shy,” “non-assertive,” and my (least) favorite, “deer in the headlights”… that I have the capacity to become angry- outraged, even- and I can talk about it to anyone who will listen. Most of the time I won’t even stand up for myself, but now I feel like I’ve got a whole world of vulnerable women to protect.

No one may be listening to me, but then again, they may. Search the words “Dove Axe Unilever” on Google blog search, and my blog is the first to come up (as of today- 4/22/08). No one may ever search for those words. But they may. Because, like it or not, this situation has become a permanent part of the Unilever company story. It even has a Wikipedia page devoted to it. A Google web search for “Unilever” brings up Rye Clifton’s video as only the fifth entry, with the videos Unilever and Dove meant for you to see- Evolution and Onslaught- nowhere in sight.

For right or wrong, this is happening. And it’s all happening because people got angry- people like me. There was a time before the internet when that probably didn’t mean much, but that time is long gone. And now the fact that Unilever behaved in a hypocritical manner through their marketing is a permanent stain on the company’s reputation, recorded in the annals and archives of the internet, retrieved at a moment’s notice, discussed by folks half a world away from each other with only a few keystrokes. Now I’m one of those people too, and whether you agree or not with a word I say, I consider it a privilege to be a contributor to that global conversation.

THIS is why I have a problem with Unilever.

I have a problem with Unilever because they KNEW. They knew exactly, down to the precise percentage, how women were impacted by images of idealized, unattainable, "perfect" beauty.

Dove was very public about the fact that it did research about women's perception of themselves, and we have probably all heard the statistic they came up with that only 2 percent of the women they surveyed considered themselves beautiful, and 98 percent do not. But there's more.

Dove's research found that images of "perfect beauty" lower the self esteem of 80 percent of women, making them feel insecure and depressed. Dove also found that a full 75 percent of women felt depressed, guilty, and shameful after only three minutes looking at a fashion magazine. Imagine that. Less than 200 seconds flipping through the pages of Vogue, and 2,250 of the 3,000 women they interviewed in ten countries felt not only A) Depressed, but B) Guilty -- they blamed themselves! -- and C) Shameful. 

Three-quarters of these women felt shamed by these images of perfect beauty and Unilever KNEW that. They have NO excuse. Yes, maybe the entire purpose of the research was to find an angle to more effectively sell Dove products, but once the company tapped into that knowledge, any subsequent marketing was done with the awareness of these company-discovered numbers.

 NINETY-EIGHT percent. EIGHTY percent. SEVENTY-FIVE percent. These numbers are too extreme to be ignored. And if Unilever is going to tell me that MY MOTHER, MY SISTER, MY FUTURE DAUGHTERS AND MY BEST FRIEND feel GUILTY, DEPRESSED, and ASHAMED of themselves while looking at the VERY IMAGES of ideal beauty that you feed into the media, then the executives making these decisions are truly as soulless as the corporate entity they represent. 

"For too long beauty has been defined by narrow, unattainable stereotypes," Unilever says at the site linked above. "Women have told us its time to change all that. Dove agrees. We believe real beauty comes in many shapes, sizes and ages. That is why Dove has launched the Campaign for Real Beauty."

So there you have it. Dove believes in making women realize they're beautiful. Unilever believes in profits at the cost of that mission. As a public relations student who is a WHOLEHEARTED supported of effective and creative marketing, THIS has crossed the line because UNILEVER KNEW exactly what it was doing to "real women" with Axe. 

It makes me sick that I am one of those seventy five, eighty, and ninety-eight percents. It makes me sick that a wolf was able to dress in a dove's clothing and capitalize on my insecurities to sell to me. It makes me sick that every woman in the world doesn't know this yet. And with this motivation, I am writing this blog as a letter to Unilever, but more importantly, as a letter to YOU. Don't rely on a corporation to augment your self-worth. You can find it all around you in the things you accomplish, the people you interact with, and the ones you love and who love you. Dove is a scam and Unilever the con artist. And from the bottom of my heart, it makes me sick.

More blog reactions

In continuing the overview of the contribution of bloggers to this conversation, other widely read blogs like The Situationist, HealthBolt, and Parents for Ethical Marketing have picked up on the topic as well. “Unilever is not part of the solution; in fact, Unilever — one of the largest manufacturers of cosmetics, skin lighteners, diet products, and the like — may be one of the worst offenders,” wrote Jon Hanson of The Situationist.

“Shouldn’t Dove be talking to its parent [Unilever] about not talking to our kids? Why would we applaud the arsonist when he passes out pamphlets on how to fight fires?” He goes on to say, “If Unilever doesn’t care about 'real beauty' it should stop getting rich off the illusion that it does."

A Parents for Ethical Marketing blogger discussed the issue of Girl Scouts working in conjunction with Dove and the Dove Self Esteem Fund which sponsors them. The blogger asked, "how can the Girl Scouts accept funding from a corporation that produces this?"

In a letter to the CEOs of the Girl Scouts, the blogger wrote,

"I am sure you are aware of the controversies surrounding Unilever's claimed support for girls' self-esteem (through the Self-Esteem Fund) while continuing to advertise their Axe products using degrading and sexist marketing. And you might be aware of their production of skin-lightening products marketed to women in India and other countries as a means to 'gain confidence.' ...But for the Girl Scouts to be directly associated with a corporation that continually undermines the very core of what Scouting is today - a woman running for President will still feel silly around boys- is reprehensible."

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, this is the Hillary Clinton ad referenced in the blog. It features Clinton wearing an "Obama 2008" button and a tagline that says, "Imagine the power of Axe."

Salon.com blog contributor Rebecca Traister wrote,

“As long as you’re patting yourself on the back for hiring real-life models with imperfect bodies… why ask those models to flog a cream that has zero health value and is just an expensive and temporary Band-Aid for a “problem” that the media has told us we have with our bodies.”

(This refers to the Dove Firming line of products that was being sold in conjunction with the campaign.) As someone close tothe real beauty campaign I spoke with via email told me, “By the time [the models] appeared on Oprah, I was informed that Dove was kicking itself for not using [the campaign] to advertise their ‘Nourishing Line’ instead of their ‘Firming Line’ of products.”

I would imagine so.

Bloggers have their say (as usual)

All in all, it's been six months after the release of "Onslaught" and the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood coming in and blowing the lid off everything. Today, a Google blog search for Dove and Axe returns nearly 10,000 results. And this includes plenty of influentials like Andrea Learned and Leslie Goldman, both of the Huffington Post. Some bloggers were even quicker to the draw than "A Message from Unilever" filmmaker Rye Clifton. David Vinjamuri, an advertising reviewer for Third Way Brand Trainers, wrote that Unilever "should consider selling off lines which don't meet the criteria for [Dove's] campaign, and dedicating the company to products which fit the new brand promise." He concludes that the "brilliant campaign could save the brand and kill the company."

Later responses following Clifton's film were increasingly more impassioned. ShapingYouth.org blogger Amy Jussel reported that a stream of comments in response to the "Onslaught" film on fitness website Shape.com began as praise but turned into outrage once the discrepancy was pointed out. Another blogger, Mrs. Flipphead from her blog Den of Wolves, was advocating a boycott of Unilever products when she found her blog was being visited by "Unilever Blog Monitoring." Blogger Half Pint Pixie wrote, "Never trust a corporation that tries to pretend it's a part of the solution!"

Danny G. from the AdPulp.com blog wrote,

"Unilever itself pays more attention to its sales than its values or the impressions its advertising makes on people. I suppose that's a lesson little girls need to learn from a very young age."

And Charles Frith in his blog Punk Planning, took a different approach when he wrote,

"I don't think it's honest for a multinational to put 'keep-it-real-credentials' in the 'Campaign for real beauty' while they sell skin whitening creams to, among others, Indian subcontinent and South East Asian countries that are by nature blessed with dark skin."

So maybe these are all just a bunch of GPs (you know, general public) jumping on the "I hate corporate America [or fill in your country here]" bandwagon. But maybe not. In my view, the ability to have their opinions known so powerfully and so en masse makes this one of the most powerful positions to which the grassroots has ever been able to get. And that really means something.

More blog reactions to come.

More comments from marketers...

E-marketing specialist Bill Thomas also called Unilever out on its shortsightedness in dealing with today's savvier and more informed consumer. In the insightful piece called "Consumer 'Onslaught' unveils Unilever," he writes:

"Outraged that Unilever talked out of both sides of its corporate mouth, defending young girls on one hand and then showing them become slaves to a seductively male scent on the other, the public outcry was swift, loud, and far-reaching... all this because the internet not only provides consumers the means to find out Unilever markets both products, but because it also offers those same consumers the means to instantly share their praise or outrage."

A piece by Jack Neff in Advertising Age called "Dove Viral Draws Heat from Critics" asked in its subhead, "How Can Marketer of Axe Attack the Beauty Industry's Ad Values?" The piece quotes a Boston Globe op-ed by Michelle Gillette, who writes:

"Viewers are struggling to make sense of how Dove can promise to educate girls on a wider definition of beauty while other Unilever ads [for Axe] exhort boys to make 'nice girls naughty.' ...Unilever is in the business of selling products, not values, and that means we, the consumers, are being manipulated, no matter how socially responsible an ad seems."

The piece later quotes Jim Nail, chief marketing and strategy officer for brand-monitoring firm Cymfony:

"Only one in 100 people may know that Unilever owns both brands," he said, "but that one person is likely to be participating in social media." And when that one person tells the other 99, it can change the nature of the conversation fast, he said, noting a stream of comments about "Onslaught" recently on Shape.com that rapidly shifted from praise to condemnation of Unilever when a poster noted that the company also owns Axe.

These excerpts help to identify that the reaction of professional marketers is not one of congratulations on the creative, if disingenuous, marketing tactics used. Rather, these industry members take Unilever to task on their failure to recognize the savviness of today's consumers, and the destructive nature of selling a product line using powerful social messaging that the company clearly does not stand behind.

Industry reaction: Marketers take Unilever to task

"Any excuse to get dirty," reads the copy

The fallout from Unilever's Dove/Axe dilemma can be divided into two categories, the first of which is grassroots (bloggers) and the second, and the subject of this post, is industry. Even marketers have condemned the situation as a massive misstep. Kelly O'Keefe, professor of advertising at Virginia Commonwealth University and CEO of O'Keefe Brands, publishes a list of "brand blunders" at the beginning of every year, chronicling the worst of the worst in marketing mistakes for the previous year. Unilever made it on to the 2007 list, right above FEMA and a few places below Apple (the iPhone price drop debacle) and JetBlue (who left passengers stranded on the tarmac for nine hours). O'Keefe wrote:

"Kept separate, Dove and Axe could possibly co-esixt, despite the despicable nature of the Axe ads. But Unilever goofed by chastising the 'beauty' industry for the very same tactics it uses in its Axe ads. As consumers find that the company behind the Dove campaigns doesn't share the values portrayed, it could be seen as betrayal."

In an earlier post entitled "Why Dove's Real Beauty is Only Spin Deep," O'Keefe raised the question of "whether it's wise for a large company like Unilever, with a varied portfolio of brands, to promote conflicting points of view. After all, the Dove campaign is a positive step, isn't it?"

He effectively answers his own question by posting his comments on an Advertising Age article by Bob Garfield on the campaign, where he wrote:

"If the values reflected in the campaign don't reflect the company that paid for it - and clearly they don't - then they are nothing more than well crafted propaganda aimed at manipulating people into thinking that Dove cares about these things.

"It's nice to see positive imagery in advertising, but it's a lot nicer when it's authentic, not just a cynical corporate trick to sell soap. Dove is a product, and products don't have beliefs or values. Companies have values, so why don't we ask Unilever what they think?

"Unilever, if you're listening, what's it going to be? Treat women like real people, or sex slave? Pick one."

O'Keefe then quotes Garfield's reply:

"A worthy cause, a brilliant strategy, a flawless video. It all amounts to something very close to perfection. So yes, absolutely, four stars... Damn, if it just weren't for the nagging hypocrisy of it all."

Another Axe to the heart

It's easy to have a campaign glorifying "real women" when the whole point- the "shock value" of the campaign, and it's very selling point is these "real women." But what would be really groundbreaking is using women with the same body types as the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty spokesmodels-sizes 6 to 14, to be specific- in an ad like this one, the latest from Axe:



Can you imagine? We all know that if Axe did this, it could very well be treated as a joke; the public would ridicule it if it was done to be taken seriously, or else Axe would spin it as some type of funny situation, maybe where man is disgusted at the women he sees. Bottom line: none of those women are a size eight because size eight women don't sell sex in the world of Axe. In the real world, where the average woman is 5'6" and 163 pounds, to be a size eight is pretty great. But what man, in his fantasies, wants to be admired by lumpy, bumpy, "real" women in lingirie as he's walking down the street? Certainly there are some, maybe many, but clearly this is not what Axe considers marketable beauty.

And the social commentary that is made by this point- and the further reinforcement of the idealized female body type- is really rather sad.

"Just a few bloggers in the U.S. who DON'T GET IT"?

(Axe commercial screenshot)

Note to Unilever... never a good approach to insult and dismiss your most communicatively powerful critic. Yet this was their response, the company line officially disseminated by Unilever's Chief Marketing Officer, Simon Clift, in the London Times on December 3, 2007.

His words, in an excerpt from the piece:

“'It’s a spoof on the mating game. The joke is on the boy. It’s just a few bloggers in the US who don’t get it.' He said that Onslaught was not antibeauty industry, merely an attempt to tackle low self-esteem in girls. He defended Unilever’s right to use different imagery to attract teenage boys. 'They are obsessed with sex. Nothing that we or anybody else says will change that,' he said."

I like Digital Bulletin's thoughtful anaysis of the issue:

"The backlash against Unilever's campaign is a salient lesson for big brands using viral marketing to open up dialogue with consumers, highlighting the fact that the same power that spreads the messages that brands want consumers to see can also be harnessed by those who have an alternative point of view."

Bottom line? Don't insult or dismiss the very grassroots power that has the upper hand when it comes to credibly persuading your customers! The blogging community is relentless when it comes to perceived corporate injustice, and the Dove/Axe issue has been no exception. In the six months since "Onslaught" was released, Rye Clifton posted his "A Message from Unilever," and the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood began their letter-writing campaign, a google search for blogs on both Dove AND Axe turns up over nine and a half thousand results.

Just as Unilever was poised to become the darling of new media marketing for its wildly successful viral video ads, it learned the lesson that more and more corporations will be introduced to sooner or later: the hand that feeds it can bite back.

Still looking for the answers that are blowing in the wind

What are the ethical implications of using serious social commentary to sell products for solely company profit? There are those, like Product(Red) who do it to raise money for charitable causes, and even Dove has its “Self Esteem Fund,” but that’s different. Dove’s fund is an accessory to the integrated marketing campaign that is Real Beauty, and not (at least explicitly) funded by Dove sales.

While creative and at least in Dove’s case successful in terms of a marketing technique, it rubs me the wrong way because it seems exploitative to the group whose problems are being used as a selling point. And while corporate social responsibility is always a welcome and in fact necessary aspect of any organization, using feigned corporate responsibility as a guise to pander to a market strikes me as low, and I’m not the only one. Blogger and Ph.D. candidate Mary writes,

"Dove/Unilever has managed to simultaneously exploit women's insecurities about their bodies (that's firming cream being sold in the "Real Women Have Curves" ads) and tap into a populist, uncritical "you go, girl!" ethos that mistakes attitude for feminism. Should we really be falling all over ourselves congratulating a multinational corporation for suddenly seeing the harm that the advertising they commission is doing to society?"

And she continues,

“The in-house charity reeks of the kind of corporate exploitation I cannot stand. Charity is only really charity if you get nothing in return; mounds of good publicity is hardly nothing. One cyncially hopes that the self-esteem material will not have the "Dove" logo splashed on every page in an effort to inculcate brand loyalty. Too cynical? Perhaps.”

There is a wealth of blog commentary online about this issue; in fact, it was the bloggers who refused to let Unilever quietly sweep it under the rug in the first place. I am glad to know that, even though I may feel like I am throwing my voice into a futile wind, I have allies who support my David effort against Unilever's Goliath.

Dove's at it again!

For the next phase in their "Real Beauty" campaign, Dove is tackling the somewhat less hard-hitting issue of stress and the inner voice. Of a woman in her twenties. To whom they want to sell their new fragrance. Using Alicia Keys. Alright! Never one to knock things before I have tried them, I did some research to find out exactly what Dove's "Fresh Takes" microseries entails.

According to the Fresh Takes press release posted on PR newswire, "We believe their twenties should be a wonderful time for women as they embark on their first, real adult adventures and begin to discover their own unique beauty," said Kathy O'Brien, Dove Masterbrand marketing director. "We hope the go fresh program will help give them a new perspective on their lives and expand how they define success, ultimately making this a more beautiful time."

Remember the research that Dove did before the first Real Beauty campaign phase, the ones that helped them to discover that only 2 percent of women consider themselves beautiful? Well, they're at it again, having found that "96 percent of women in their twenties say their inner voice speaks to them on a typical day" and that "55 percent admit their inner voice criticizes them on a daily basis." Freaky!

Fresh Takes, which airs during episodes of MTV's The Hills, features Alicia Keys and two other actresses portraying twenty-something professionals dealing with everyday issues, all while promoting the new go fresh line of fragrances. After all, "according to Dove research, scents have the power to inspire women with 60 percent reporting that fragrance can life their spirits or change their mood." And statistics like these give Dove the power to exploit the hell out of women's issues! Neato!

So without further ago, here is Dove Fresh Takes episode #1, "Chillax":

So what do you think, twenty-something women? Does it speak to you? To me, Fresh Takes seems strangely stilted and lacking in that genuine, "reality" quality that helped make the first campaign so popular.

Contemplating my novel

A lot of the process of writing these blogs has been of self discovery; how do I really feel about this issue? I am in public relations and advertising, after all. Shouldn't I be applauding Unilever for their cunning insight into what makes their target markets buy? For some reason, what the company's done here just strikes me as wrong. Maybe it shouldn't. But I am a person who's big on the concept of being genuine- I've had enough Holden Caulfield influence in my life to have developed an instinctual dislike for "phoniness"-- and maybe some of you will argue that I'm probably in the wrong field. But I don't think so. What I think is that both Dove and Axe had enough going for them that Unilever could have chosen different marketing paths for one or both that would still have been very unique and effective WITHOUT being disingenuous and contradictory.

Where they truly got creative here was with Dove. With Axe, well, the fact that sex sells is certainly no great revelation in advertising, especially for men's grooming products (even the ads for men's hair color always have some lovely lady admiring the newly de-greyed gentleman). Dove's marketers really had their "Ah-hah" moment when they decided to sell to women via an "anti-sex" campaign. And not only that, a campaign that takes it a step further and speaks AGAINST the disillusioning "beauty industry" AND raises money for a self-esteem fund AND holds self-esteem camps and things of that nature (all marketing tools, by the way, look that one up under profitable ends justifying deceitful means).

So, having taken the Campaign for Real Beauty as far as they did, it seems like SOMEONE in the Unilever board room could have stood up and said, "You know what, we've got this product line that goes above and beyond to spread positive female body-image messages through it's advertising, why undercut our own campaign by falling into the tried and true 'sex sells' mantra for Axe?" But instead of that happening, the suits probably bypassed the morality issues and went straight for the justification, which happens to be something along the lines that Axe's intended humor nullifies in some way its sexual content.

I want to wrap up this tenth post with an analogy, appropriate although decidedly extreme, that came up in recent conversation about this topic. It's like if a corporation were to own both the Black Panthers and the KKK and made money off both. Two very different and conflicting sets of values, both potentially profitable. I'm sure there are plenty of fallacies there but I think the root of the concept is ultimately the same and very applicable.

Watch and discuss.

An ad for Axe in Mexico. What do you think, could they get away with this in America? Also, this ad is funny - clearly satirical. But does its facetious nature take away from the message it sends to men that equates Axe with the oversexualized of women, and to women that this is what an attractive and desirable woman looks like?



This is how Axe America does pole dancing:



And threesomes:



Same question apply here. You know what I think. Tell me what YOU think.

Answering my own question

On the heading of this blog, I ask the question if somebody can tell me why this is okay. I asked that question out of my own despair at what I perceived to be a total injustice for impressional women everywhere, including myself. But in writing this blog and doing the research I have, I've come to understand why it is ok-- even commendable-- and it has to do with the ethical framework through which it is perceived. It is easy to forget this, but not every ethical framework values things like truth, honesty, and purity of motivation. There ARE legitimate forms of ethics- Utilitarianism, for example- where achieving the greater good is ALWAYS the most ethical course of action, despite how "unethical" the actions taken to achieve those results may seem.

"Ethics in Advertising"... what is that? Who's ethics? If this is referring to the advertiser's ethics (rather than the public's), the Dove campaign is incredibly ethical. In a world where the bottom line is God and the end (sales) justifies the means (achieving the sale), what Dove did had the ethical thing locked up (sales for the products advertised in the campaign increased 600 percent within it's first 60 days, and global sales exceeded $1 billion in 2004). Their motivations were to achieve astronomical sales by playing on the commonly held insecuries of "real" women, and they succeeded in this wildly. If we as the public perceive the company as being astruistic because of it, it's all the better for them.

So I guess I can now say I understand why, in what world, these things are ethical, acceptible, and "ok." I still don't agree with it, however, and if my blog can help some consumers to understand the truth of this campaign, and the system of ethics that condone it, then I will be happy.

Did you know...

...that the group of six "Real Beauty" models used as a part of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty were used to promote a line of anti-cellulite products?

("new dove firming," says the caption, "as tested on real curves.")

But wait... I though if I was supposed to love my body, I was supposed to love it with all its lumps, bumps, and imperfections. You're telling me I need to buy your product to improve myself BUT love myself how I am anyway? Perceive it how you want, but what I see here is a company that is speaking out both sides of its mouth.

My second problem with this is that, although I cannot personally attest to the effectivenes of the Dove firming line, I CAN say that, as a drug-store quality product (read: less effective ingredients), there are some cases of cellulite that even Dove cannot rescue. What then? Do those women effectively fall outside the scope of the campaign, unable to be helped by the product AND unable to be happy with themselves without it?

One thing that I have to say angers, saddens, and frustrates me from ALL brands, drug store quality or otherwise, is when they promise an outcome or result that they simply cannot consistently provide. In this sense, MANY brands, NOT just Dove, prey upon the insecurities of women and our willingness to open our wallets in a moment of weakness for the temporary endorphin-boost of the purchase of a new product that promises to cure what ails us. We all have probably learned by now that miracle-in-a-bottle cures are RARE and many times, expensive.

As I said, I haven't used Dove's Firming line of products, so I can't say. But my guess is, miracle cream, it's not. And if you're going to peddle your products to us lumpy, bumpy women of the world, and you're not going to deliver results, all you've done is create a segment of female consumers even more insecure with themselves than they were to begin with.

With that, I leave you with the Fair and Lovely commercial of the day. Fairness meter, anyone?

Fair and Lovely: Whiter is Better?

My posts have so far been regrettably long, and this is going to come out sooner or later anyway, so here's a short and sweet introduction to the world of Fair and Lovely. In addition to Dove and Axe and Unilever's approximately 400 other brands, Unilever also sells a brand in India called Fair and Lovely. It is a skin lightener, and the advertising, well, makes me sad. According a Salon.com article written by Andrew Leonard and dated 2/13/08 (referencing the words of Aneel Karnani, professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business and native of India):

"Karnani establishes with little room for disputation that Unilever and HLL have been playing on racial sensitivities to market Fair and Lovely to poor women in India and elsewhere in Asia. The television and magazine advertisements he describes would not last a nanosecond in Western markets, if any advertising director was suicidal enough to run them. They show depressed dark-skinned women getting progressively more light-skinned, and in the process, getting good jobs, landing boyfriends and achieving happiness. In India, two egregiously racist advertisements were forced off the air after a lengthy controversy."

Here are two ads for you to watch. The first one is in English, the second is not. Both get their points across quite well.

A moment of clarity

I think I need to take a few steps back; clarify some things. I need to frame my focus and give context to what I'm doing here.

I'm writing about a subject where it's easy to get carried away. To demonize Unilever in this process really isn't my intention, I just want to point out a few issues I disagree with to them and to their customers.

The opinion is widely out there- and valid!- that this issue is Really No Big Deal. The Axe ads are funny, and the Dove ads are inspiring. What's wrong with that? Well, nothing, and I should know. I'm a public relations and advertising major, and very much in love with the field. And if Dove and Axe aren't great examples of effective advertising, then I don't know what is. So in that sense, they've done their job well.

But as a person close to the Dove campaign (who does not wish to be published) recently and aptly told me, "Altruistic advertising? It doesn't exist." So let's all catch our breath, and stop praising Dove for something it has done calculatingly and strategically with the singular goal in mind of selling their product(!), NOT to build your self esteem. They don't care about that so much as they do sending a persuasive message and selling their product by playing on a specific social issue that is relevant to its target.

And you know, THAT'S GOOD! In the PR/Ad world, That's perfect-- in fact it's our goal! But through this blog, I pray that we can all be educated consumers, buy the product if we we want it, but NOT be naive about the true nature of and motivations behind the campaign we are seeing, and NOT give credit where it is not due.

A study in fallacies

Unilever says:

"Some of our brands incorporate social positions in their programmes. For instance, Lifebuoy soap in India and Africa supports hand-washing campaigns that are designed specifically to reduce instances of diarrhoea. ...And Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty, which promotes the idea that beauty comes in all shapes, sizes and ages, is a good example of aligning the values of the brand with what's important for its target audience."

My thoughts:

What Lifebuoy soap does for "diarrhoea" prevention Does Not Equal what Dove does for "Real Beauty."

Because:

Unilever does not have another product line that, through its advertising, promotes diarrhea.

Unilever DOES have another product line that, through its advertising, promotes an unrealistic ideal for the female body type and oversexualized behavior.

Also:

Did we all read the caveat: "aligning the values of the brand with what's important for its target audience" ?

Translation: The values featured in the Dove campaign are important to the people it is trying to sell to. NOT to the company. ESPECIALLY not to the parent company. We were all tricked into emerging from our cynical caves just long enough to believe that maybe, just maybe, altruistic advertising does exist after all. Time to duck back into the bunker folks, we were deceived.

They provide the voo doo doll, you provide the pins

Ahh, the media relations section. Every major company's website has one, ultimately a teeming mass of controlled media and corporate propaganda. Be it press releases, speeches, stockholders information, humanitarian programs, awards, bios... this information and more is packaged, repackaged, and tied with a bow to provide inquisitive members of the media with the most scrubbed company line possible. Useful only to a certain extent, and when taken with an appropriate amount of salt, as Unilever was kind enough to remind me of today.

Here I am reposting one of the gems we call press releases that I unearthed on Unilever's media relations site: a bleachy-clean explanation for that whole silly Dove/Axe conundrum. You see, everyone;

"Dove and Axe are both great examples of that mission. The campaigns for both brands resist telling people how they should look and both aim to build people's confidence and self-esteem."

Ohhh, nowwww I get it.
Well, at least they're not using size-zero models (see paragraph one). I'm sure those axe girls were at LEAST a size 1. LIKE THIS ONE:
Okay, enough with my sarcasm. I learned this week in my persuasive communications class about Aristotle's use of enthymemes, or what we may know as syllogisms. It basically involves allowing one's audience to arrive at the main proof of the speaker's argument by their own logical conclusions. I'll reserve my own observations for a later post.

THE PRESS RELEASE: (**note** Thanks to Taylor from Internet Comm for pointing out that the date below is actually a European time code and refers to to December 4, 2007)

04/12/2007 : Unilever takes its marketing responsibilities very seriously.

Unilever takes its marketing responsibilities very seriously. In all cases we follow the law, are respectful of differing views, and take care not to offend. In addition, we have our own marketing code of conduct that includes not using size-zero models and explicit guidelines about direct advertising to young children.

We have a wide portfolio of everyday consumer brands across both foods and home and personal care - offering products to consumers that address different needs. We believe consumers understand that different products can and do take different positions in the marketplace. For example, products like ice cream can be considered an indulgence, others are essential for a balanced diet, and some are explicitly designed to help manage weight while maintaining a balanced diet. Some brands help consumers feel good about themselves, and others are designed to offer hygienic living for them and their family.

What unites all the products in the Unilever portfolio is our Vitality mission which seeks to promote products that help our consumers look good, feel good and get more out of life. Dove and Axe are both great examples of that mission. The campaigns for both brands resist telling people how they should look and both aim to build people's confidence and self-esteem.

Each of our brands talks to its target consumers in a way that is relevant and that communicates its own unique proposition. Across the world, different people want different things. We have teams whose job is to find out exactly what people want and to come up with innovative marketing campaigns to reach out to them in a way that speaks to them. Sometimes that's serious and informative; other-times it's light-hearted and amusing.

In fact, we are recognized as being one of the most creative companies in the world in this respect and we are very careful to try to ensure that we do not offend.

Some of our brands incorporate social positions in their programmes. For instance, Lifebuoy soap in India and Africa supports hand-washing campaigns that are designed specifically to reduce instances of diarrhoea. Ben & Jerry's has been taking a stance on climate change and other social issues for many years. And Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty, which promotes the idea that beauty comes in all shapes, sizes and ages, is a good example of aligning the values of the brand with what's important for its target audience. Unilever's founder, Lord Leverhulme, built his business on the goal to save lives and preserve health - a mission we remain committed to through our "vitality" focus.
###

Well, Thank !

Just so we all have an idea what we're talking about

Dove's first "viral video" in the Campaign for Real Beauty, called "Onslaught," struck a chord with viewers and consumers everywhere with its refreshing message about the woes of the beauty industry.



Unfortunately, alert viewer Rye Clifton found himself with just enough excess time on his hands to create the following rebuttal and open more than a few eyes to a lurking discrepancy:



Now that we are all aware, it makes truly amazing marketing tools like this one, called "Evolution," seem a lot less credible when we consider the source.

An open letter to the executives at Unilever who make our lives a little more confusing

Attn:
Michael B. Polk, President of Unilever Americas
Kevin B. George, Vice President and General Manager of Antiperspirant, Deodorant, & Hair Care
Lisa Klauser, Vice President of Consumer and Customer Solutions

Dear Unilever,

When it comes to your subsidiary brand Dove, I am your target market. I am a 22-year-old, educated, socially conscious female, and consumer of cosmetics. I shop in drug stores for therapy. Like the other "real women" to whom Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty has targeted its advertising messages, I have self esteem that is impacted by the fashion industry, a distorted sense of real beauty that is impacted by the airbrushers, and love handles that are impacted by french fries. I am your target. Nice to meet you.

I just wanted to let you all know what a great job you did getting your message out to me. You uploaded it onto YouTube and forwarded it to people, and those people forwarded it to other people, until one of my friends forwarded it to me. You were even able to recruit my advertising professor at Cal Poly to spread your message; he showed it to our class of 40 students. Heck, I forwarded it to my mom; looks like you were even able to recruit me. So good job on that.

I guess the problem I need to address here is one that you already know about, one that you knew about before anybody else did, but must have figured out a way to rationalize to yourselves. You know what I'm talking about. Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty, with its public rejection of the emaciated, airbrushed model and bold statements in support of us curvy, lumpy, wrinkly, or untanned "Real Women" types, has been a huge coup for you. And also, your body spray line Axe, with its airbrushed, bikini-clad, non-lumpy, bumpy, wrinkly, or ghostly model-types, is doing really well too. So congratulations on the individually-tailored, market-specific campaigns. But now those of us who believed your "Real Beauty" line to be genuine have some questions to ask you.

Problem is, in the information age that has come about in this eighth decade of your company's existence, everyone knows everything about everybody else. Especially a publicly traded corporation. And when all it took was for the increasingly savvy and informed public to put two-and-two together, so to speak, the outcome was that your rationalization had to be acceptable to everyone else. And in case you haven't noticed, your public dismissal of the situation hasn't been as readily accepted as you might have liked. You know, the one where you said that "Axe body spray is aimed at a different group to the Dove products and so the marketing differs accordingly." Because while what you're saying is true, when you're selling your wares by tapping into the nerve of a very serious social issue, you had better be sincere. And you weren't.

I am writing you today to let you know that, as a duped and deceived member of your target audience, I feel it is my right and responsibility to hold you accountable for what you did to me. Namely, marketing to me an disingenuous message (which I bought), and using me as a means to disseminate that message (which I did). Rather than sit by and be helplessly deceived, I am going to use this blog to share with as many people as will read it, the truth of your motives.

I just don't want Unilever or Dove to get any more credit for being socially responsible, is all. I'm sure you understand. It just wouldn't be fair.

Sincerely,

Little wrists