Dove tests a beauty placebo. So what?

I'm with Jezebel on this one. Dove's new ad idea is pretty bad:



Not only that, but it's patronizing. With Oprah-esque music and hushed tones of concern, it has a "Psychologist and Body Image Expert" tell a bunch of women that they will be testing a patch that improves their own perceptions of their beauty. They are asked to document their feelings and experiences.

Big surprise! They report feeling better about themselves. Then they are told they've been had, in childish fairy-tale fashion, that the real beauty was within them the whole time!

And this proves what? That people are easy to manipulate? That Dove really wants all women to feel beautiful? You can achieve a placebo effect with all kinds of things. But the real challenge isn't to trick women into having a more positive body image; it's to do something about the negative image they had in the first place.

Interestingly, Unilever (maker of Dove) has been selling men an empty placebo to make them feel attractive for years. It's called Axe, and let's see how it celebrates female body image:



Perhaps it's time for Dove marketing to dismount its high horse. "Evolution" was a great campaign. This one, however, is unconvincing and kind of insulting.

Is this really "redefining beauty"?

There's a quite a bit of backlash against excessive Photoshopping of models over the past few years. From snarky comments by subjects who don't recognize themselves post-PS and anti-Photoshop marketing campaigns to outright bans on excessive photo alteration, retouching has never been more in the public eye. In some cases, the backlash can even be accused of going too far.

Some magazines, like Seventeen have responded to public pressure by promising to stop airbrushing models to death. And of course some fashion brands are jumping onboard.

Which brings us to this:

The "all natural" approach by aerie, the lingerie brand associated with American Eagle, is understandably getting noticed. AdFreak's Roo Ciambriello calls them "Simple, Revolutionary Lingerie Ads." But as Adrants' ever-subtle Steve Hall points out, "Of course we're never going to see girls in these campaigns that aren't already naturally hot."

While it's laudable that the models don't have artificial thigh gaps or plasticized skin, they are not exactly ordinary people. Not that we should entirely expect them to be, I suppose. Models are hired based on their looks. But attempting to take the higher ground by saying the brand represents "the real you" can expose it to greater scrutiny as well.

Remember when a Dove "Real Beauty" casting call was leaked? It specified "BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE WILL BE SHOWN! MUST HAVE FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS! Well groomed and clean...Nice Bodies..NATURALLY, FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic." (Caps theirs.)

Underwear models, like swimsuit models, tend to have pretty "flawless" appearance to begin with. I get it. Fashion is aspirational, and people want to believe that the clothes will make them seem sexy, or beautiful, or powerful, or cool, or whatever the brand promises. It always has, even long before Photoshop existed.

However, the question for me is whether a lingerie brand that features beautiful young women lounging around provocatively in underwear should be celebrated for not gilding the lily (so to speak) by altering them to remove their few "flaws."

Maybe just a little bit, but not too much. It's still feeding into female stereotypes of what acceptably sexy bodies look like, and how their sexuality is presented to the world.

Facebook ads face a serious content problem

For Facebook users, social ads are just the slightly annoying cost of using the free social network. For advertisers, they are a cheap and highly targeted way to reach potential customers.

But as with all web advertising, Facebook ads for big brands occasionally show up in context with questionable or objectionable content.

Here are some examples, from wallblog.co.uk (click to enlarge):

Facebook's problem with pages that promote rape culture is well known. The social network that has the sensibilities of a stereotyped grannie when it comes to showing certain kinds of nudity in even the most innocent context can't seem to stop pages that encourage criminal assault and rape.

The issue of brand ads showing up on awful Facebook pages made mainstream news yesterday when it was revealed that Dove — that paragon of pro-women marketing — had one of its ads show up on a page called "Drop kicking sluts in the teeth".

From the Daily Mail:

Dove Cosmetics, the RSPB [Royal Society for the Protection of Birds] and audiobook site Audible are among those who have complained to the social networking giant that group pages with titles such as 'Raping!', 'Drop kicking sluts in the teeth' and 'This is why Indian girls are raped' have all featured their adverts.

Today the site was facing a major PR crisis amid claims it was slow to respond to the complaints.

Dove said it was 'shocked to see our advert' on 'Drop kicking sluts in the teeth'.  

It complained to Facebook, who removed the group. 

However, the ‘closed group’ page is still active, listed with a 'controversial humor' warning. 

Vodafone also confirmed that it had contacted Facebook after one if its adverts appeared on a page called 'This is why Indian girls are raped', which contained pictures of scantily clad Indian women. 

The page was seen as particularly offensive given recent widespread reports of rape in India. 

The RSPB also confirmed that it had contacted Facebook about an advert that appeared on the same page. 

'Unless they can assure us that they are working out a way to guarantee this kind of thing doesn’t continue, we will be forced to consider our advertising options,' a spokesman said.

Ouch. I'm wondering what Facebook can actually do about this. Two years ago, they pulled a few controversial rape joke pages after public outcry. But the network is still home to the same kind of blatant racism and sexism that infests the internet at large.

There is, of course, a question of freedom of speech. But truth be told, Facebook is free to censor what it wants.

In its Terms Of Use, Facebook makes its position on freedom of speech pretty plain:

You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

It also gives itself an out for what it doesn't censor:

We are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content or information you may encounter on Facebook. We are not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, or any user of Facebook.

Free speech is one thing; advertiser pressure is another. Just as Google Adsense tends to shut down its relationship with any site it sees violating its strict content rules, Facebook may decide that its brand advertiser money is more important than hosting the sexist rants of frustrated teenage boys.

Dove launches another powerful campaign about body image

Via Marketing

I've had mixed feelings about Dove's various "real beauty" campaigns, but this new one by Ogilvy Toronto is pretty solid. It's also very, very depressing.

Via Marketing

The campaign press release claims that "6 in 10 girls have quit sports and activities that can play a major role in their future development, because of how they felt about their looks."

It includes this quote from Dove V.P. of Marketing, Sharon MacLeod:

"Women across Canada have more power than they realize to shape a positive future for the girls in their lives. We want to help them realize that girls want them to play this role and to empower them by giving them the tools to start this dialogue today."

Dove advertises directly to Photoshoppers

Well, this is neat. Ogilvy One in Toronto anonymously created a fake Photoshop Action (a free add-on) for Dove, posted it on Reddit and on design forums, and presumed to trick Art Directors, designers and photo retouchers into downloading it. They called it "Beautify" and it was supposed to add a skin glow to models.

It did something entirely different:



Very clever PR stunt, but was anyone really duped? And if they were, what were their reactions? Nonetheless, the gag isn't really the ad that will meet Dove's objectives. The video is. It's on-brand, and extremely shareworthy. Well done!

Tip via Ads of The World

Dove provides yet another new perspective on beauty

Dove Canada would like you to think twice about your perception of beauty. 

According to their Newswire release, the ads "spark a conversation around how extreme re-touching of images can go unnoticed and can distort a woman's perception of beauty." 

It also adds, "ATTENTION PHOTO EDITORS:  Image provided should be run upside down to deliver full impact of campaign."

But since turning non-mobile computers upside down to decode a print ad is rather awkward, here it is:

Her eyes and mouth had been digitally flipped so that they looked normal when you saw them upside down, but when you turned... yikes!

Inversion illusions are not new to advertising, and were once even used to make dirty jokes:

Here's an example of the same trick: (You may recognize the smile)

Dove's campaign leads to  their Canadian Facebook page, where they hope to engage girls in a more positive discussion about beauty. "The Real Truth About Beauty Research",  conducted by Dove, found that only 9% of Canadian girls (10-17) and 3% of women are comfortable calling themselves beautiful.

And to add a little cross-mojination to my blog, here's that ad run through the Ugly Meter I blogged about earlier:

Oh, my!

Tip via Because I Am A Girl Canada

Dove gives "feel-bad" Facebook ads a makeover

Dove has introduced a new Facebook app (created by Ogilvy Australia) that lets you replace "feel bad" weight loss, cosmetic and body enhancement ads with positive messages about body acceptance, and then share them with other women:



I'm not quite sure how it works, but I would guess that it has permission to game the Facebook social ad system to re-target women who would otherwise be served up the "negative" ad with Dove messages.

But if that's the case, how does it affect Facebook's contract with its other advertisers? Ethics aside, if you had paid media money to have your nasty old muffin top ads served to a certain profile of woman, wouldn't you be pissed if they were subverted by Dove?

Or maybe, just maybe, the "bad" ads are actually decoys placed by Dove to provoke interaction with the brand? Hmmm...

I have no way to test this theory, however, as it is only available in Australia.

What do you think of this campaign? Is it real? Or is it a trick?

F'd Ad Fridays: Dove skin whitening cream?

I can totally see how this one went down. The Art Director cast women of various ethnicities, to show "diversity". Then, at the photoshoot (or afterwards in Photoshop) arranged them in to create an aesthetically-pleasing gradation of skin tones. Without paying attention to the actual ad claim behind them:

As MB Quirk at The Consumerist points out, "I'm inclined to think, and I hope I'm right, that Dove is really saying any woman of any color could get lovely skin instead of rough by lathering up with this wash. Either way, whoever approved this ad should get a thump on the head and a 'What were you thinking?'"

What were they thinking indeed... especially since Unilever, who owns Dove, actually is in the skin-whitening business in South Asia.


[via AdPulp]

"Self-Esteem" my lily white ass...

She branded me with science

When I took my son and a friend to the Canada Science and Technology Museum today,  I was surprised to see the social sciences represented.

"Who Am I?" is a temporary exhibit, installed last November, that has several interactive displays designed to teach kids about both innate and acquired personality issues.

Produced by Musée de la nature et des sciences de Sherbrooke, the exhibit is sponsored by an odd marriage of The Dove Self-Esteem Fund and The Smurfs (who are used to explain genetics to kids).

The Dove invovement is particularly interesting, as most corporate sponsors at sci-tech are (obviously) technology companies. Dove uses this great corporate social responsibility opportunity to further cement its brand relationship with the young female target market.

And so, among the other displays, you'll find a monitor playing an endless loop of "campaign for real beauty" spots, and a computer running a number of quizzes about fashion, media and body image.

What follows is the tour I took through one of them, "Are You Media Smart?". Obviously, there are no wrong answers. (Click to enlarge.)

And there you have it. I graduated! Although I feel a little dirty, now that they tell me I've spent the last 10 minutes in the "Girls-Only Interactive Zone". Oh well. Boys need education too.

Unreal Beauty

You remember Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty, right? The one where they showed women of diverse ages and shapes, and celebrated the wonder of real women?



Well, here's a little insight into their casting process from New York Magazine. It seems that Dove posted this casting call on Craigslist NYC last Friday:

DOVE “REAL WOMEN” PRINT CASTING JUNE 28-30, 2010 in NYC
ABSOLUTELY NO ACTRESSES / MODELS OR REALITY SHOW PARTICIPANTS or ANY ONE CARRYING A HEADSHOT!!!!
REAL WOMEN ONLY!
LOOKING FOR 3-4 REAL WOMEN for a DOVE PRINT CAMPAIGN!

AGES 35-45, CAUCASIAN, HISPANIC, AFRICAN AMERICAN, & ASIAN!

SHOOT: SUNDAY, JULY 18 in NYC! MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR THE SHOOT!
RATE: $500 for Shoot date & if selected for Ad Campaign (running 2011) you will be paid $4000!
USAGE: 3 years unlimited print & web usage in N. America Only

YOU WILL BE PHOTOGRAPHED FOR THE CAMPAIGN IN A TOWEL!
BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE WILL BE SHOWN!
MUST HAVE FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS!
Well groomed and clean...Nice Bodies..NATURALLY, FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic.

Great Sparkling Personalities. Beautiful Smiles! A DOVE GIRL!!!
STYLISH AND COOL!
Beautiful HAIR & SKIN is a MUST!!!

PLEASE SUBMIT SNAPSHOTS of FACE & BODY ASAP & WE WILL CALL YOU IN FOR A CASTING NEXT WEEK 6/28-6/30 in NYC!
urbanproddovecasting@gmail.com

(bolding mine)

The ad has since been removed from CL, but Adrants notes that the ad is still live on Casting Call.

Hmmm... Let's put aside the accusations of significant digital retouching in their ads. That's as expected as McDonald's using fake food for their ads, because nothing ever looks as good in raw footage as it does in reality.

But the hate on scars and tatts? I guess they consider women with injuries or body art to be flawed. And what constitutes "too curvy"? Or "too athletic"? Man, real beauty is complicated...

Oh well, at least they still appreciate freckles:



And wrinkles:



And (gasp!) women over 40:



But apparently, "real beauty" still has its limits. I suppose it's part of their "natural" brand, that they want people to have skin that is unmarked by accident or culture. I wonder what would happen if a woman showed up for the audition with a prosthetic limb?

Postscript (2:30 pm): Looks like the "no tattoos" thing was a change of heart.