Mostly, the public was won over with the message of self-confidence and "real beauty". However, common criticism came in the form of male chauvinists (my favorite comment came from a columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times who said of the billboards featuring large women in their underwear, "the only time I want to see a thigh that big is lightly breaded and in a bucket," which is pretty hysterical no matter your personal views), professionals in the health field lamenting acceptance of obesity and the cynical crowd attacking Dove for advocating natural beauty while selling cosmetic products.
So can you reconcile the message with the messenger? It is inarguable that the stereotypical woman you see in advertisements in beautiful, young and thin and that this probably has some significant affect on young girls. However, as many bloggers, journalists, competitors and advertising professionals have pointed out: Dove is a cosmetics company. The initial introduction of the "Campaign for Real Beauty" was timed to coincide with the release of Dove's newest product: a skin firming cream for cellulite. Honestly. This is a brazen manipulation of product and consumer reaction. Make the average American woman (5'4" and a size 12) have these feelings of "I can be curvy AND beautiful. Thank you Dove for that message and self-esteem boost," then... casually offer them the option of feeling even better about themselves by trying a new cream to rid them of cellulite. Excellent use of marketing, but is it ethical?
You have to be a true cynic to appreciate what is happening here. Dove is a brand owned by Unilever who, coincidentally, also owns the brand Axe body spray and deodorant for men. Axe ads, as any breathing American could probably attest to, use beautiful sexy women and sexually provocative innuendoes to market their products. Contradiction? Here's another: Dove is classified as a cosmetics company. The very industry their ads prey upon and attack. True, Dove is perceived more as a "soap and lotion" company then a cosmetics one, but it is part of the industry none the less. At its core, Unilever is a giant corporation, looking out for itself before young girls I would think. And if they find a way to do both (say, raise awareness and good feelings towards their products while simultaneously raising their profit margin), then hey, more power to them.
On a different note, I've noticed an interesting opinion being echoed in comments on blogs and articles about Dove's campaign. There is a backlash against showing larger - some truly overweight - women as "normal" and "beautiful" during an ongoing obesity epidemic in our nation. The comments seem to primarily come from physicians, not just "fatists". I believe they make an unanticipated but highly valid point. Should Dove be promoting these values? One doctor raged against the new accepted stereotype of a female in our culture being overweight or obese, claiming it would be better if the stereotype in media leaned more toward thin women - at least that way young girls wouldn't get the impression that being fat is okay. Where this view fits in with the larger argument, I'm not sure since it seems to be a minority group raising this issue.
When it comes down to it, Dove has done something remarkable. Thanks to a large survey conducted in 2001 on worldwide perceptions of beauty and the geniuses at Oglivy & Mather, they were able to create an ad campaign that got ridiculous amounts of attention, generated discussion internationally on the issue of women and beauty, and created an enormous amount of warm feelings toward their brand. I guess in this example, we can think of Dove as consequentalists: the reasons why they produced the campaign don't matter so much, what matters is that the consequences have been phenomenal for their business.
No comments:
Post a Comment