I’m way behind on posting about this, thanks to Shameless columnist and friend Anne Katz for passing it along. I’ve been following the Dove “Campaign for Real Beauty” for a while now, and wrote a piece about it in our last issue, in which I found their marketing campaign, which centres on notions of “real” beauty to sell beauty products, full of contradictions.
Their new ad fascinates me for so many reasons. One, the company made the ad (which they call a “film”) for their website, but on a whim uploaded it to YouTube, where it was viewed over a hundred thousand times and written about in newspapers. Think about how much money the company saved on ad costs (and now Shameless is effectively advertising for Dove because I have posted an ad on our website! For free! I feel uncomfortable with this, but I want us to discuss this video).
But more importantly, what to make of an ad for a beauty product line that outs the marketing strategies of the entire beauty product industry? I tried to contemplate some of these ideas in my piece, but I think this ad/film adds some more layers to the debate. Does exposing the way images of women are fabricated and sold to us change the way we look at advertising and understand ourselves in relation to these images? Does it matter if we can “read” ads for what they really are? Should we even care?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
14 comments
Does exposing the way images of _________ are fabricated and sold to us change the way we look at advertising...? Does it matter if we can read ads for what they really are? Should we even care?
For some people, the ability to "read" ads is enough to change their lifestyles. For some people, it's hardly even a drop in the bucket and is just a, "Oh, that's nice," even if they know how to read them much better than this ad alone could teach them.
For me, it was enough to change my lifestyle some of the time, but not all of the time. Over the last several months, mostly thanks to hyper-academic, super-logical feminist critique (like the kind I get here and at Packaging Girlhood, rather than some of the people who mix a lot of propaganda & yelling with reason) of ads (hey, could've been logical Adbuster-types, but I never "got it" when I read their stuff. I guess I needed to hear it filtered through a single issue that was relevant to me).
I've done a good job holding off on packaged food and forcing myself to buy fresh, local, and bulk food even when I know I won't have the energy to cook it for days (and thus will end up eating raw carrots & spaghetti with olive oil and salt and pepper until I do).
But I haven't done a great job by any stretch of the imagination. I just went & got cookies out of the vending machine because, well, I wanted Pop Tarts more than the fancy veggie & lentil soup sitting in the fridge, waiting for me! (They were out of strawberry ones, so I went for the highest weight per dollar in the machine instead.)
I keep getting Dairy Queen Blizzards, even though I know that they don't taste all that good to me when I've abstained from processed sugar overall, because I can't seem to get away from the sugary snacks for the last few months. But yeah, why do I go for this stupid treat that costs as much as a scoop of readily avilable, fantastic-tasting local creamery ice cream (admittedly only half its volume) and doesn't taste half as good? I'm sure it has something to do with YEARS of childhood pleasure associated w/ the treats, and more specifically, with M&Ms--both; Blizzards & M&Ms; in general are given out to each other by Americans at large to friends & family at gatherings, offices, parties, outings, etc. So even though I know I don't like that chocolate or that ice cream as much, and I feel like I do a great job of thinking, "Meh. I don't need that baloney," when I see a DQ's sign or the little M&M; characters on a billboard, on days when I'm NOT subjected to advertising, I'll still get an insatiable craving for a particular mass-produced product all on my own.
Nevertheless, as I said, I'm doing a wonderful job. I was just thinking today about how I kind of wish I could read Nat'l. Geographic more often. Usually, I prefer to sneak onto university campuses, print off PDFs of articles classes are reading, and read those on the bus. But sometimes, I just kind of miss seeing the pictures everyone else in my dominant culture tells me are the definition of eclectic knowledge & eye-opening.
So what'd I do? Ask for a subscription as a b-day present or Xmas present?
Nope.
I don't want to waste the paper. I will NOT give in to the cultural & advertising pressures (not necessarily Nat'l. Geographic's advertisements, but ads in general, esp. on TV) that suggest I need everything I use new because my time--Katie's time--is "better" than that of those with less money, and I deserve to treat myself to something delivered to my door.
I resolved to wait until my next run to the thrift store, since that magazine is piled high on the shelves of all of them, and dig through all 500 looking for issues newer than 2005. Reduce & reuse.
(Same with shoes. I'd planned all day yesterday to do a trying-on run after work! But I talked myself out of it, knowing I should make a several-month effort to buy second hand first. After all, my current shoes, though uncomfortable, are years away from being unuseable.)
Posted by Katie
November 2, 2006, 2:41 PM
Bwah. Another post lost? Was it the HTML tags?
Posted by Katie
November 2, 2006, 2:42 PM
The spam filters don't seem to like you! Fixed. In the future, feel free to e-mail me using the webmaster link at the bottom of the page if there's a problem.
Posted by Wesley
November 2, 2006, 3:18 PM
This reminds me of your post from back in the olden days (that is, May, I think) about the website that shows how print ads are retouched: http://www.shamelessmag.com/blog/2006...
Though I think I like that retouch site better than the Dove one, the lack of corporate interest makes it seem less dubious to me.
Posted by Thea
November 3, 2006, 10:39 AM
I love this clip, but for all the wrong reasons.
I cant even begin to understand the pressures that face young women, being constantly inundated with images unrealistic faces and impossible bodies. But I think this video does a service in appropriating some of the bullshit. And thats the first step.
I think its a brilliant marketing scheme for a corporation to take a socially responsible stance. Even if they are trying to sucker you into buying some soap, its still a good thing. Like McDonalds selling salads; theyre doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, which is still better then not.
http://www.laurengreenfield.com
Posted by reighny
November 4, 2006, 1:24 AM
I agree with Reighny, it's a brilliant marketing scheme, but riven with contradictions. It's simply more evidence that comapnies will cynically exploit any advantage to ship more units.
Dove is manufactured by Unilever, the same company that sells Lynx deodorant here in Australia (known as Axe in the US). Lynx's ads here in Australia are routinely blatantly offensive to women. One Lynx compaign - "show them the way" - featured men spraying Lynx deodorant from their armpits down to their crotches, followed by images of women "following the scent" to the obvious fellation implication.
It's a clever campaign, but it says more about the desperation for profit through brand differentiation than any real desire to benefit women's self-esteem.
At the end of the day, no-one should need a product to feel beautiful.
Posted by Dave
November 5, 2006, 4:52 AM
Whoowhoo, a reader from Australia!
We have Lynx here too, it's just called Axe. It's packaged exactly the same way and has all the same ads, just with a different name. (What does that reflect about what is considered manly in Canada as opposed to Australia? Is it that in Canada you prove you are manly by cutting up trees, and in Australia you prove you are manly by...acting like a big cat? Hm.).
But I'm shocked that the same company owns both Dove and Axe, which have diametrically opposed marketing campaigns. Geez!
Posted by thea
November 5, 2006, 1:19 PM
This whole "real beauty" campaign just angers me. The message is that real women are beautiful and that we should accept ourselves the way we are, right? Then how come in their ads all these "real women" have flawless skin and perfect hair? Its great that they're showing women with real curves and whatnot, but how is it possible that not one of them has a blemish, a stretch mark, a bruise, or frizzy hair?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that dove sells skin and hair products?
It makes me feel so belittled to have dove tell me that my perception of beauty is flawed, when they're the ones who sell it.
Posted by Zohar
November 6, 2006, 9:51 PM
Hi Nicole, I was just googling my distro's PO Box' postal code and I discovered that we're postal neighbours :]
If anyone has any doubts about how the director and Dove are just exploiting this issue to sell more units, see this photo series, made by the same guy:
http://community.livejournal.com/foto...
Posted by Frandroid Atreides
November 13, 2006, 1:10 PM
Oh my, that is unbelievable. That's the same person who directed the Dove ad? This reminds me of the photos in the Tom Ford-directed issue of Vanity Fair (I think it was Vanity Fair, he was fully clothed on the cover, leering after a naked Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson?) that was so degrading and women-objectifying that I actually thought he was being ironic. No such luck.
(Hello postal neighbour!)
Posted by Nicole
November 13, 2006, 9:26 PM
Well, glad you like my "hyper-academic" book! (Actually amazon.com does a little analysis and says that we use fewer big words than 50% of all the other books they sell...)
I just wanted to add to the discussion that even though UNILEVER also does Axe commercials,and even though the director may have done other uncool stuff, that doesn't undercut the effectiveness of the DOVE ads. Sure they are selling something about smoothe skin when they choose their models...but that's a huge improvement over other ads. And their ads with the little girls in them who really look like little girls? After a long day of critiquing, it's nice to give a little credit where credit's due, hoping someone else will make the effort.
Posted by Sharon Lamb
December 4, 2006, 9:14 PM
Hey, Sharon, you say that "Actually amazon.com does a little analysis and says that we use FEWER big words than 50% of all the other books they sell."
Couldn't that be rephrased to state "amazon.com does a little analysis and says that we use MORE big words than 50% of all the other books they sell" and it would convey the same info?
Just a thought. . .
Posted by Johnny Nitro
December 12, 2006, 1:01 AM
Honestly, I have no idea why everyone is so shocked by this. So okay, Unilever umbrellas Dove and Axe. I find the conflicting images of each respective company to be irrelevant. As aforementioned by another, Dove sells beauty products, which happens to include wrinkle cream I believe. So, needless to say I find nothing wrong with their "real beauty" campaign because the average public will realize that it is merely a "strategic move" on the part of Dove. It is easy to see that the fact that they sell beauty enhancing products shows that at the core they do not have our natural beauty at heart. They are a corporation afterall. Suprise? What people should realize is that this campaign does actually achieve something. It brings an important discussion to surface. It exposes the alterations that occur to make a woman look like the way she does in an advertisement. It makes it easier for woman not to compare ourselves to those images. So yes, some may be dooped into buying dove products to feel "liberated" but mostly it causes people to talk and analyze the media's part in a woman's body image. So is Dove the devil afterall?
Posted by Elspeth
December 16, 2006, 12:35 AM
Reading the comments posted thus far, the most insightful is Dave's, posted on November 5th. He gets closest to the real essence of this much ballyhooed, vacuous "campaign" for "real beauty." I cannot join with those who bestow accolades for the "brilliant marketing scheme," though I concede it is a "scheme"--in the pejorative sense. Put less euphemistically and stripped of its misplaced honors, the unvarnished truth is plain: It is a cynical ploy to get a lot of free advertising using the popular and equally hollow "self-esteem" industry as the propellant.
No, I am not "shocked" that Unilever would contrive to keep their advertising costs down and take clever (but hardly laudable!) advantage of the mass culture's laughable pre-occupation with "self-esteem," the meaning of which has been rendered shallow, if not completely empty, by the self-promoting, pop psychologists (like Dove's "Advisor," Susie Orbach) who take their show on the road, selling their remedies for the soul, like the snake oil salesmen of yore, to a gullible public who fail to realize these charlatans are the manifest symptoms of the disease for which they seek a cure.
I find no fault with Dove purveying its beauty products, but the public has a right to scrutinize the manner in which they do so, and to think about and analyze how they are being manipulated by the cynical ad men who are selling us a bill of goods other than the product in question. People in advertising have long understood the allure of sex, money, power and prestige, as well as increased prospects for health, happiness and marital bliss. While Elspeth finds "nothing wrong" with Dove's ad campaign because, she claims, "the average public will realize that it is simply a 'strategic move'on the part of Dove," I believe she misses the more salient features of this matter. First is the glaring hypocrisy, akin to the tobacco industry's ads to encourage people to stop smoking. Then there is their shameless and opportunistic alliance with the "self-esteemists." In so doing they add snake oil to their line of unctuous beauty creams, the two products together promising eternal youth and the requisite "self esteem" to endure it!
One final question of Dove: Does this snake oil come with a money-back guarantee? (Step right up young lady, you in the back row. Make your check out to the campaign now. Susie Orbach needs to be paid for her next presentation....oh...oh....I mean the self-esteem of young girls around the world is at stake.)
Posted by Joe
January 15, 2007, 12:44 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.