Do you think that Dove has gone too far, not far enough, or done a good job?
How can Unilever, the parent company of Dove, also market products like Fair and Lovely (a skin bleaching cream) to other parts of the world?
Fair and Lovely:
A Fair and Lovely commercial in English, for anyone interested:
Before I pick best: I’m sorry if it seemed like my mind was already made up against Dove and Unilever, that wasn’t my intention. I agree that this campaign is just marketing, but I also think it’s immensely refreshing. Not because women need normal-sized models to make them feel better about themselves.
The truth that none of these companies can seem to realize about their target audience is this: we don’t actually hate ourselves as much as they have wanted us to. Our insecurities are more exposed when we are bombarded by unattainable beauty images, but the truth is that most adult women (and many younger ones too) can look in the mirror and see something they like. *That’s* what Dove has hit on, and why it’s been successful, because it celebrates what we love about ourselves, instead of condemning what we hate.
And I hope that this will spread beyond marketing, when other people in the media realize that having “normal-looking” women on the screen is not the kiss of death.
i absolutely love it. they are promoting the fact that you don’t have to be skinny to be beautiful. people with freckles, and other blemishes can be beautiful as well. all this skinny girl, model crap has influenced the world to believe that skinny is the only thing that is beautiful, well its not.
troll for workgroups v 3.11
April 2, 2010 at 8:35 am
Well, I think the ad campaign does a great job of showing the evils of beauty advertising – in that regard it’s confessing its own hypocrisy.
Re: The “fair and hireable” ad: It’s easy for us, as Americans, to get wrapped up in our sensibilities with respect to race to look at this as a racist ad, when in fact, it seems to me like it’s the inverse of a tanning product ad. Of course, it looked like she was being turned down for a job or something (I couldn’t understand the audio), and I’ve never heard of anyone in the USA being turned down because they weren’t “tan” enough (except perhaps a lifeguard).
Anyway, bottom line is that Dove’s marketing campaign is just that – MARKETING. They really wouldn’t care if they manufactured a soap that burned women’s faces (well, they would care about the ensuing lawsuits).
I don’t take anything I see on TV as anything more than an insincere attempt to get money out of my pocket.
EDIT: The questioner makes no reference to it being a business decision – I do. Therefore, I can only conclude that Allegra agrees with me, when she says “you’re absolutely right.”
Well, it’s sort of refreshing, yes, but you’re absolutely right. It’s about business when it comes down to it, not “genuine concern” for women.
Also, why is Dove selling a line called “Pro Age” which, though it claims to be “for” women of all ages, nonetheless by its very existence presupposes that women are constantly thinking about and anxious about their age?
P.P.S. Soap has a long and rather sickening but fascinating history surrounding European imperialism in Africa. Some of the very first “advertising” as we know it was coming out in late 19th century Britain, at the same time that Europe had essentially barged in and taken over the government of the entire African continent. There are a couple books that discuss the link between soap as a symbol of “cleanliness” and how it was used obsessively as a sort of fetish product by whites in black countries (the “civilized” folk keep themselves clean with their soap; it was their God-given duty to give soap and civilization to the Africans – but keep in mind that pre-20th century, Europeans had little knowledge of the existence of germs or soap’s effect on them):
_Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest_ by Anne McClintock
_Double Crossings: Madness, Sexuality, and Imperialism_ by Anne McClintock
I was going to point out the Fair and Lovely thing, but you beat me to it.
Although I understand that Dove is trying to sell their beauty products, I think that it’s important to note that the message they’re sending is wrong. You might think I’m a b!tch for saying this, but not every woman is beautiful. And why SHOULD every woman have to be beautiful? Of course there are insane standards of beauty, but isn’t the more pressing issue that women are valued first and foremost for their looks? What’s the better solution: lying to women and telling them they’re all beautiful, cuz, hey, that’s what’s important, or sending the message “You don’t HAVE to be beautiful – society will value you for other things, too.”
Anyway. Like I said, I understand they’re trying to sell products, so solution (a) is a much better marketing scheme than solution (b). I just don’t think people should worship Dove the way they do when they’re contributing to the underlying issue instead of solving it. Just take the ads for what they are.
I guess it’s alright, but I’m with troll for workgroups on this one: it all boils down to just a marketing campaign, and they are the first to take advantage of America’s trend of starting to dislike seeing “thin is beautiful”. Plus, I don’t use Dove products because I’m one of those lucky people with sensitive skin that is prone to eczema that can’t use stuff with sulfates in it(not to mention that Dove’s soaps dried my skin out worse then the others did) and since I don’t use their soaps and shampoos, I don’t pay any attention to the rest of their beauty care products, so I couldn’t really care less what they do. It isn’t the supposedly beautiful people in the ads that makes me want to use a product, it is the claims of the product’s manufacturer that makes me want to try it, and any positive experiences that I might have had with other products from that manufacturer.
It’s an excellent concept, but Dove has never been particularly influential in an industry where youth and size-0 clothing run rampant. Still, I applaud them for their efforts. I started using Dove deodorant recently (as opposed to Lady Speed Stick), due in large part to that campaign.
I don’t think they went too far. If someone doesn’t want to see fat people, they can change the channel.
I don’t think they should go any further, either.
These commercials are just taking a different approach to “you want to be pretty, use our product”.
Honestly, while giving some women confidence, I think it’s a terrible campaign stereotyping women based on size. It’s segregating “real” women even further. What’s more important is to become comfortable in who you are without an ad campaign to tell you so. All this ad campaign does is drive pride born out of self-consciousness. If you’re not skinny, change it. Don’t find a TV ad to tell you you’re beautiful the way you are.
I’m not a skinny girl, in the least… I’m not a big girl either… Just a normal, invisible person that gets overlooked often, and has way too much time to think.
Do you think Dove would not exploit a incoherent social science concept to make money? How can they market ” Fair and Lovely ” ?” How can they not, with the real aesthetic standard being what they are marketing to. ” Real Beauty ” indeed. You women are being played for fools by Oprah and her relativistic view on what is aesthetically pleasing. The media only magnifies normal human desire; it does not create false image. Oprah and Dove do.
I don’t live in the US, so haven’t seen these ads. But we had the same version in France. I think it’s a good idea, although it’s still marketing, anyway.
However, I really don’t like the idea of a skin bleaching cream. You can package it the way you want, it’s still horrible. Someone compared it with a tanning product, but I don’t think it’s similar. Most white people get a tan, so it’s natural. I don’t like tanning salons, anyway. But whitening your skin is NOT a natural process, and I don’t see why white skin should be the norm of beauty. It’s like girls in Japan and in Asian countries in general who have plastic surgery to get caucasian eyes. Why should white beauty standards be the norm? I’m white, by the way.
I think that it is a lovely concept and the fact that it is a mere marketing ploy should not detract from the fact that yes it does help us to feel better about ourselves. Maybe when other companies realize that it has been successful they will jump on the band wagon and get rid of the size 0 models.
April 2, 2010 at 7:45 am
i absolutely love it. they are promoting the fact that you don’t have to be skinny to be beautiful. people with freckles, and other blemishes can be beautiful as well. all this skinny girl, model crap has influenced the world to believe that skinny is the only thing that is beautiful, well its not.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 8:18 am
from what i’ve seen they’ve done a pretty good job. i like what they’ve done in conjunction with the Curves gym. all colors, sizes, ages. it’s great!
as far as unilever goes, i have no clue. never heard of it.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 8:23 am
You seem to have your mind made up based on the tone of your post, but I think I agree with you.
It doesn’t seem very authentic to me, but it’s a good start even if people don’t buy it at the moment.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 8:35 am
Well, I think the ad campaign does a great job of showing the evils of beauty advertising – in that regard it’s confessing its own hypocrisy.
Re: The “fair and hireable” ad: It’s easy for us, as Americans, to get wrapped up in our sensibilities with respect to race to look at this as a racist ad, when in fact, it seems to me like it’s the inverse of a tanning product ad. Of course, it looked like she was being turned down for a job or something (I couldn’t understand the audio), and I’ve never heard of anyone in the USA being turned down because they weren’t “tan” enough (except perhaps a lifeguard).
Anyway, bottom line is that Dove’s marketing campaign is just that – MARKETING. They really wouldn’t care if they manufactured a soap that burned women’s faces (well, they would care about the ensuing lawsuits).
I don’t take anything I see on TV as anything more than an insincere attempt to get money out of my pocket.
EDIT: The questioner makes no reference to it being a business decision – I do. Therefore, I can only conclude that Allegra agrees with me, when she says “you’re absolutely right.”
Alert the wire services!
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 8:59 am
Well, it’s sort of refreshing, yes, but you’re absolutely right. It’s about business when it comes down to it, not “genuine concern” for women.
Also, why is Dove selling a line called “Pro Age” which, though it claims to be “for” women of all ages, nonetheless by its very existence presupposes that women are constantly thinking about and anxious about their age?
And, on the subject of whitening products, check out the Lux “White Glow” soap being sold by the face of native Indian Aishwarya Rai: http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6160/luxwhiteglow002yz3.jpg .
P.S. Curves has donated quite a lot of money to anti-choice political campaigns over its years in existence. Its male owner, Gary Leavin, is an anti-choice evangelical “born-again” Christian: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/06/19/sweating_with_the_enemy/?page=1 .
P.P.S. Soap has a long and rather sickening but fascinating history surrounding European imperialism in Africa. Some of the very first “advertising” as we know it was coming out in late 19th century Britain, at the same time that Europe had essentially barged in and taken over the government of the entire African continent. There are a couple books that discuss the link between soap as a symbol of “cleanliness” and how it was used obsessively as a sort of fetish product by whites in black countries (the “civilized” folk keep themselves clean with their soap; it was their God-given duty to give soap and civilization to the Africans – but keep in mind that pre-20th century, Europeans had little knowledge of the existence of germs or soap’s effect on them):
_Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest_ by Anne McClintock
_Double Crossings: Madness, Sexuality, and Imperialism_ by Anne McClintock
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 9:38 am
I was going to point out the Fair and Lovely thing, but you beat me to it.
Although I understand that Dove is trying to sell their beauty products, I think that it’s important to note that the message they’re sending is wrong. You might think I’m a b!tch for saying this, but not every woman is beautiful. And why SHOULD every woman have to be beautiful? Of course there are insane standards of beauty, but isn’t the more pressing issue that women are valued first and foremost for their looks? What’s the better solution: lying to women and telling them they’re all beautiful, cuz, hey, that’s what’s important, or sending the message “You don’t HAVE to be beautiful – society will value you for other things, too.”
Anyway. Like I said, I understand they’re trying to sell products, so solution (a) is a much better marketing scheme than solution (b). I just don’t think people should worship Dove the way they do when they’re contributing to the underlying issue instead of solving it. Just take the ads for what they are.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 10:14 am
I guess it’s alright, but I’m with troll for workgroups on this one: it all boils down to just a marketing campaign, and they are the first to take advantage of America’s trend of starting to dislike seeing “thin is beautiful”. Plus, I don’t use Dove products because I’m one of those lucky people with sensitive skin that is prone to eczema that can’t use stuff with sulfates in it(not to mention that Dove’s soaps dried my skin out worse then the others did) and since I don’t use their soaps and shampoos, I don’t pay any attention to the rest of their beauty care products, so I couldn’t really care less what they do. It isn’t the supposedly beautiful people in the ads that makes me want to use a product, it is the claims of the product’s manufacturer that makes me want to try it, and any positive experiences that I might have had with other products from that manufacturer.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 10:52 am
Bullsh*t
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 11:41 am
Who would have thought. Advertisers pander to feminist ideology when they can make money off it, but they’re just paying lip service.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 11:49 am
It’s an excellent concept, but Dove has never been particularly influential in an industry where youth and size-0 clothing run rampant. Still, I applaud them for their efforts. I started using Dove deodorant recently (as opposed to Lady Speed Stick), due in large part to that campaign.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 11:53 am
In regard to the fair and lovely commercial… I don’t think it is a fair representation to all women…
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The one shown here was not nearly as wonderful as the others I have been seeing. That one (English) was pretty basic and average.
They have been showing heavier ladies and emphasizing “Be happy in your own body”. Two thumbs and ten toes way up!
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I don’t think they went too far. If someone doesn’t want to see fat people, they can change the channel.
I don’t think they should go any further, either.
These commercials are just taking a different approach to “you want to be pretty, use our product”.
Honestly, while giving some women confidence, I think it’s a terrible campaign stereotyping women based on size. It’s segregating “real” women even further. What’s more important is to become comfortable in who you are without an ad campaign to tell you so. All this ad campaign does is drive pride born out of self-consciousness. If you’re not skinny, change it. Don’t find a TV ad to tell you you’re beautiful the way you are.
I’m not a skinny girl, in the least… I’m not a big girl either… Just a normal, invisible person that gets overlooked often, and has way too much time to think.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Do you think Dove would not exploit a incoherent social science concept to make money? How can they market ” Fair and Lovely ” ?” How can they not, with the real aesthetic standard being what they are marketing to. ” Real Beauty ” indeed. You women are being played for fools by Oprah and her relativistic view on what is aesthetically pleasing. The media only magnifies normal human desire; it does not create false image. Oprah and Dove do.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I think that as a manufacturer and seller of ‘beauty’ in a bar, in a jar, or a tube, they ultimately can’t be applauded.
Because they are concerned with selling more stuff, and only concerned with the body image image of women so far as it helps them sell more stuff.
Give them credit for the marketing, not for going out on a limb for the ladies.
Allegra- thanks for the links and info! I did NOT know that about curves.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I don’t live in the US, so haven’t seen these ads. But we had the same version in France. I think it’s a good idea, although it’s still marketing, anyway.
However, I really don’t like the idea of a skin bleaching cream. You can package it the way you want, it’s still horrible. Someone compared it with a tanning product, but I don’t think it’s similar. Most white people get a tan, so it’s natural. I don’t like tanning salons, anyway. But whitening your skin is NOT a natural process, and I don’t see why white skin should be the norm of beauty. It’s like girls in Japan and in Asian countries in general who have plastic surgery to get caucasian eyes. Why should white beauty standards be the norm? I’m white, by the way.
[Translate]
April 2, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I think that it is a lovely concept and the fact that it is a mere marketing ploy should not detract from the fact that yes it does help us to feel better about ourselves. Maybe when other companies realize that it has been successful they will jump on the band wagon and get rid of the size 0 models.
[Translate]
August 4, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Love the visible care renewing. but the bottle is bottom heavy and awkward to hold in the shower/
[Translate]