IKEA interactive mirror wants you to feel good about yourself... shopping

Adfreak featured a new PR stunt by IKEA in the UK that consists of a mirror that compliments the appearance of people who look into it. Cute, eh?

Adfreak's Tim Nudd compared it to Dove's strategy of building confidence by celebrating "real beauty." But what is a machine that doles out automated compliments really doing?

This is just a fun little story, but I wonder if such obviously fake compliments do more harm than good. IKEA says that this project is trying to address the problem that half of British people don't get complimented by anyone in an average week. But are people really so easily flattered that they respond positively to a robot?

Apparently so:


Self-esteem is a wonderful thing. But the automatic compliment-generator reminded me of something Peggy Drexler, Ph.D, wrote a couple of years ago in Psychology Today. She revealed that the current generation of parents is damaging their children's ability to succeed by over-complimenting them:

Research with children and families has indeed told us that praise has the opposite intended effect. It does not make children work harder, or do better. In fact, kids who are told they’re bright and talented are easily discouraged when something is “too difficult;” those who are not praised in such a manner are more motivated to work harder and take on greater challenges. The unpraised, in turn, show higher levels of confidence, while overpraised are more likely to lie to make their performances sound better. Praise becomes like a drug: once they get it, they need it, want it, are unable to function without it.

The compliments referenced are about academic or athletic achievement. Another school of thought says that more superficial compliments — specifically, when adults endlessly tell girls how pretty they look — actually adds to body image anxiety by programming them to believe that attractiveness is the main standard by which their worth is judged.

Adults are smart enough to know that the IKEA mirror is just a toy.  But adults are not immune to the more subtle effects of false ego-boosting in advertising. Elaine Chan and Jaideep Sengupta at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology published research that demonstrated how consumers' behaviour was motivated by flattery in marketing, even when they were fully aware that the advertising was insincere:

participants in the study were asked to evaluate the merits of a new department store opening in the area based on one of the store’s advertisements. In addition to describing the new store’s offerings, the ad lauded readers for their impeccable sense of style and eye for high fashion. While participants overwhelmingly categorized the pamphlet as flattery with the ulterior motive of pushing blouses, the experimenters were more interested in how their attitudes would be influenced at the implicit level. Might participants develop a non-conscious positive association with the department store, even after rejecting the ad as meaningless puffery? And if so, would this implicit reaction be a better predictor of decisions and behavior down the road? Will even the people who are wise to advertising tricks end up at the register, credit card in hand? 

It turns out that implicit attitudes towards the store were more positive than explicit attitudes. They were also better predictors of reported likelihood of making future purchases, as well as likelihood of joining the store’s club. So it seems that while participants quickly dismissed these ads at the explicit level, the flattery was exerting an important effect outside their awareness.

So, is IKEA making its UK customers more confident about their bodies? Or is it just giving them a quick hit of artificial self-esteem to boost sales, at the expense of creating an even more compliment-addicted, superficial and narcissistic culture?

Let's go back and look at Dove. I've criticized the brand quite a bit for some of its stunts, but here in Canada the Dove Self-Esteem Project is taking a very different direction from the IKEA mirror. It states: "The pressure on girls to be beautiful impacts their self-esteem and can hold them back from fulfilling their potential in life." But rather than insincerely telling all girls that they are meeting a common beauty standard, the program tries to shift girls' self-esteem away from simple appearance.

The IKEA mirror is just a silly little stunt to get earned media. But it also says a lot about where we're going as a society. Or rather, how far we haven't come.

IKEA gives in once again to intolerant international markets

Just over a year ago, IKEA Photoshopped adult women out of its Saudi catalogue. Now they've removed an interview with a same-sex couple in the Russian edition of their magazine.

According to The Independent:

The December edition of the furniture giant’s magazine, which is distributed across the world, features an interview with Clara and Kirsty, a Dorset-based lesbian couple, talking about their family life and their Ikea-filled interiors. 

However the lengthy feature has been spiked from the Russian edition of “Ikea Family Live” in case it failed to comply with Russian’s controversial new law banning “homosexual propaganda”. It has been replaced with an article about a single Chinese designer named Chao.

The article cites an IKEA spokesperson confirming that the cxompany was complying with a Russian law benning dissemination of “homosexual propaganda among minors”.

Queerty, in calling out the big bog retailer for complicity in the Russia's "gay purge", suggested the following alternatives for IKEA:

• Leave the lesbians in but don’t identify them as lesbians, since some representation is better than nothing
• Pledge to donate a portion of their Russian revenue to global LGBT civil rights initiatives
• Publicly denounce the clearly unconscionable law
• Troll the homophobes by filling the catalog exclusively with lesbians

They also threw this Italian ad in the store's big yellow and blue face:

"We are open to all families"

Mainstream media claim a boycott is afoot, but I'm not seeing too much noise yet. However, there was one IKEA "kiss-in" in Brooklyn that is rather sweet.

IKEA has another regional brand malfunction

Last time, it was a Saudi version of their catalogue that edited out the all women. Now, it's a Thai TV ad that makes a transphobic cheap shot:



According to Reuters:

The advertisement by IKEA, the world's biggest furniture retailer, has incensed a Thai transgender group which called it "negative and stereotypical" and "a gross violation of human rights" in an open letter to the Swedish retail giant. 

The 20-second commercial shown on YouTube (link.reuters.com/gyz45t) and on Bangkok's trains in December and January entitled "Luem Aeb" ("Forget to Keep Hidden"), was disrespectful to transsexuals, according to the Thai Transgender Alliance, which demanded an explanation from IKEA. 

Transgenders, or "Ladyboys" as they are often referred to, are widely accepted in Thailand and are commonplace in the fashion, beauty and entertainment industries, but are not officially recognized as women.

IKEA main office is apparently in the process of drafting a response. Will update then.

H/T Boing Boing

Should we expect global brands to respect universal human rights?

Following the scorn heaped upon IKEA for deleting all adult women from the Saudi version of its catalogue, I think it's time to start talking about how we hold global brands accountable for how they operate in places without basic human rights.

This week, I noticed a picture going around that claimed to be from the door of a Pizza Hut in Jeddah:

Digging a little deeper, I found a 2007 blog post with more documentation of major brands giving in to sexist Saudi social and religious policy:

In this case, the policy of sex segregation is because women must expose their faces to eat, so no unmarried and unrelated man can be allowed to see them.

At McDonald's, the segregation is has created the "need" for restaurants to build parallel and non-communicating sections for (male) "singles" and "families".

Admittedly, this was five years ago. But has anything changed?

From 2009:

An American businesswoman was carted off to jail by religious police in Saudi Arabia for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks in Riyadh, the Times of London reported.
The woman, who spent a day behind bars, was strip-searched and forced to sign a false confession before being released, the newspaper said. The Times declined to publish her name at her request. 

The 37-year-old businesswoman works for a finance company in Riyadh. Her problem began when her office lost electricity. She and her male colleagues then went to a nearby Starbucks to use the coffee shop's Internet connection. 

She sat with a male colleague in the Starbucks' family area, the only place women are allowed to sit with men.  

"Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked 'Why are you here together?' I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin," she told the Times. 

Following her arrest and interrogation, the woman was hauled before a judge.
"He said 'You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell.' I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless," she told the Times. 

The newspaper said the woman had received a visit from officials at the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia. A U.S. official told The Times that it was being treated as "an internal Saudi matter" and refused to comment on her case.

And this year:

Western companies on Saudi land must comply with Saudi religious regulations. Fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other US firms, for instance, maintain sex-segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The facilities in the women's section are usually lower in quality.

I will just flat out say it: I don't think brands that want to do business in a world that respects the equality and dignity of women should be doing business in places where women have no basic rights. Full stop.

Recently, I refused to work on a project for a North American educational institution (NDA prevents me from naming names) that wanted to recruit teachers for a Saudi school. They would happily accept applications from anyone, but in reality only wanted white males. Fuck that.

Everyone — EVERYONE — deserves the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, and cannot be denied them simply because of what's between their legs. Whether that is a major right such as education and voting, or more mundane things like being able to drive or buy junk food, the continued denial of this equality is an affront to anyone who believes women are free individuals.

IKEA, when they were called out by the media in their base of Sweden, issued this statement:

We should have reacted and realized that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the IKEA Group values. We are now reviewing our routines to safeguard a correct content presentation from a values point-of-view in the different versions of the IKEA Catalogue worldwide.

You may not like where I'm going with this post. After all, don't universal human rights guarantee freedom of religion? Isn't it the Saudis' business how they run their society?

Personally, I have no problem saying that the way women are treated in Saudia Arabia, and many other countries is wrong. I don't care whether the reason given is religion, tradition, or just fear of women's liberation. Human beings deserve better.

I cannot change Saudi Arabia. But I can let western brands know that we're watching them. If expansion into wealthy but oppressive countries is more important to them than respect for women's rights, then that belief should be seen as part of their global brand.

If you want a Starbucks coffee, go ahead and order one. What you have in your hand is a beverage that stands for sex segregation and arrest of women who dare order one without their husband or brother present. If you have a Big Mac attack, remember that somewhere a single woman has had to hire a taxi driver to take her through the drive-through to get one, because to walk into the restaurant would put her at risk of being beaten and arrested by so-called morality police. Same with your Pizza Hut hot dog stuffed greasewheel, or your Double Down.

When you support a brand, you are making its values part of your own. That's the way branding and identity work. Would you like fries with that misogyny?

Famous photos defeminized for IKEA's Saudi market

Thanks to an overly culturally "sensitive" editor who photoshopped all adult women out of the Saudi version of their catalogue, the IKEA brand has taken quite a hit this week.

And the hits keep coming. The latest salvo is a Tumblr in which users share pictures in which iconinc women have been replaced by IKEA products:

Another example of how brands are in the hands of the masses these day. IKEA will no doubt recover, but their willingness to throw toss aside the brand's human rights "values," just to expand the business into an area that does not share them, is an albatross they will have to bear until they truly redeem themselves.

UPDATE: People have been asking me how IKEA could have handled this differently, without offending Saudi sensitivities about female modesty.

Are you listening, IKEA? This is a freebee:

For countries in which the portrayal of casually-dressed westerners is not the cultural norm, shoot your catalogues as furniture-only. This will incur a slightly higher photo shoot cost, but might have some significant savings in talent fees.

Add a disclaimer to the catalogue:

IKEA respects sensitivities towards modesty and western modes of dress in some cultures. However, we are a company that believes absolutely in sexual equality. For that reason, we have produced a catalogue for some regions that shows only product. Because we cannot, as an equal opportunity company, treat men and women differently.

Tip via Copyranter

Ikea apologizes for editing women out of its Saudi catalogue

Via Washington Post

The Washington Post reports that Ikea has put itself in an awkward PR situation by digitally deleting images of women from the Saudi Arabia version of its catalogue.

Ikea’s Saudi catalogue, which is also available online, looks the same as other editions of the publication, except for the absence of women. 

One picture shows a family apparently getting ready for bed, with a young boy brushing his teeth in the bathroom. However, a pajama-clad woman standing next to the boy is missing from the Saudi version. 

Another picture of a five women dining has been removed altogether in the Saudi edition.

Back home in Sweden this was such a big deal that the country's Equality Minister, Nyamko Sabuni, commented on it, telling AP, “For Ikea to remove an important part of Sweden’s image and an important part of its values in a country that more than any other needs to know about about Ikea’s principles and values — that’s completely wrong.”

Ikea has since apologized in a statement, saying "We should have reacted and realized that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the IKEA Group values." The group responsible for the catalogue added, "We are now reviewing our routines to safeguard a correct content presentation from a values point-of-view in the different versions of the IKEA Catalogue worldwide."

AP ads:

Women appear only infrequently in Saudi-run advertising, mostly on Saudi-owned TV channels that show women in long dresses, scarves covering their hair and long sleeves. In imported magazines, censors black out many parts of a woman's body including arms, legs and chest.

International marketers are often challenged with trying to fit in to regional values while still maintaining global brand values. It wasn't the first time someone called out a big brand for caving to local sensitivities, and it won't be the last. But I think Ikea at least did the right thing by apologizing and promising to make good.

If you want to see more, Copyranter has a good collection of "before and after" images.

IKEA now provides in-store daycare for husbands and boyfriends?

Yes, it's obviously a clever PR gag.



From news.com.au:

"You've probably seen the 'boyfriend chair' in clothing stores for bored shopping companions.

Now IKEA has taken the concept one step further by creating a “crèche” for retail-weary men, complete with Xbox consoles, pinball machines, continuous televised sport and free hot dogs.
MÄNLAND is being trialled for four days this Father's Day weekend [Sept 2 in Aus.] as a male-only play space to hang out in while wives and girlfriends peruse the aisles.

Publicity manager Jude Leon said the idea was modelled on the Swedish furniture giant’s existing child play area, SMALAND.

Ms Leon said women were given a buzzer to remind them to collect their other half after 30 minutes of shopping."

Although I have to admit, sexism aside, I can only stand shopping with my beloved for maximum 20 minutes per store. But that's what shopping mall bars are for...

Are you offended by this? Or is it just good-natured payback for centuries of putting the women down?

(Tip from Tastefully Offensive)

Going gonzo on crowdsourcing, and channeling Seinfeld

You know, sometimes you just have to learn by doing.

Julia, my wife, told me she wanted to enter a contest to win a $25,000 IKEA kitchen makeover sponsored by Chatelaine Magazine. I said "sure!" because I hate our kitchen too. Why?

Let me take you back to the 1990s:





Seinfeld's kitchen was where most of the "show about nothing" took place. So it was absolutely hilarious when he let a carpenter completely wreck it.

It's even funnier to us, because it's exactly what a previous owner of our house did to what would one day be our kitchen.

"It's very obtrusive..."

So here's my entry to the contest:

Do you remember the episode of Seinfeld, when he had his kitchen remodelled? When the carpenter put an island with awkward upper cupboards in the middle of the kitchen that totally ruined it as a social space?

Well, that's our kitchen. Our house is old, built in 1927, and full of “character”. The original layout was a sunny breakfast nook separated from a small kitchen. Over the decades, it has had numerous renovations, and the last one really screwed it up.

The centre island (more of a peninsula) cramps the cooking area. The shelves above block sunlight and eye contact. It's so tight to the dishwasher that nobody can pass through when loading or unloading. Not to mention the cheap cabinetry that keeps peeling white laminate.

The access to our back door is equally screwed up. Between fridge and the sink, we have to shimmy to get groceries in. (Note the built-in stove we bought in hopes of rebuilding “The Island of Misfit Interior Designers”.)

And the aesthetics! Done in the early-90s (so missing the Seinfeld irony is all the more puzzling) the concept is white and hunter green. We quickly covered the green vinyl floor...

We know this kitchen has challenges. It's small. The entire south wall is windows. (Its best feature!) The rest of the wallspace it broken up by windows entranceways.

Can you help? We love our little old house, but the kitchen is just one big mess of bad decisions and wasted potential.

Our chances of winning are slim at best, but there's nothing like participating in a social media contest to  get you inside the heads of consumers.

Let's just hope they wrote "feet" not "inches"...

Sick today, but fortunately How to be a Retronaut (via AdFreak) made my life easier by sharing this awesome IKEA parody:

Let's just hope that, unlike Spinal Tap, they don't get their measurements confused.

(Published in the QI H Annual. Written by Justin Pollard with input from John Lloyd andStevyn Colgan. (c) QI Ltd / Faber.)