| By Tanya Paperny - Oct 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Tags: advertising, beauty, body image, campaign for real beauty, corporate social responsibility, dove, media, women's issues
There's the billboard advertising with "plus-sized" women, pointing to the need for more realistic body types in the media. And the short videos, "Evolution" and "Onslaught," the first showing the transformation of a woman's face through makeup and post-production computer editing, and the latter showing a young girl bombarded with media images that debase and objectify women.
I know this is all old news, but I've never been a fan of these, and finally someone is writing about it.
MotherJones blogger Cassie McGettigan writes that Dove is owned by corporate giant UniLever, which also owns brands like Axe and Slimfast. While the blog post leaves much to be desired, McGettigan points out that these two brands don't exactly have a stellar record in terms of positive advertising.
I did a little more background research to support McGettigan's claims and found this:
And ad for Axe ending in a scene where a man is straddled by two women who simultaneously rub him down with shower gel. (I'm sure you all know examples of more - want to post them?)
Seth Stevenson over at Slate.com writes: "Dove's appeal to righteous sisterhood is just another flavor of marketing. And it's not particularly grounded in reality. Are we meant to believe that Unilever, the company that makes Dove, is a force for good?"
Stevenson also points out that no matter what, any ad for a woman's beauty product will have to play off of her insecurities in order to sell. He writes: "But what's that, you say? You love your real curves, but you've got a little cellulite? Girl, run out and buy our hocus-pocus cream right now! Those cottage cheese thighs are vile! Dear God, cover them up!"
Dorothy Snarker over at AfterEllen.com doesn't see the hypocrisy, saying: "I don’t think you can necessarily hold one company responsible for the actions of another company under its parent corporation’s umbrella."
It's tricky, but here are my feelings. I'm pretty stubbornly anti-corporate, so maybe that's my bias. I just don't trust corporate attempts at social responsibility. In the case of Dove, these maneuvers inevitably serve as PR stunts that cover up other parts of the company that serve to perpetuate women's narrow and hurtful beauty standards. At the same time, the "Campaign" is wildly popular among women who are tired of the same ol' images of emaciated women.
What do you guys think?
Update: I think this article really hits spot.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Why?
As for the Dove ads, all you write is true, though it's been true for a long time (articles have been written about this since they first started, I remember seeing the cellulite quote a long time ago) and I don't think it's necessarily a minus against Dove.
There's nothing wrong with all or most ad campaigns being insincere and often self-righteous; that's what the people want.
Speaking of "what the people want", thanks for the Slate.com link where they've got the Stacy pic. She was my favorite from the original ad campaign (as a wise man once said, red beans and rice didn't miss her) and I'd totally forgotten about her.
"There's nothing wrong with all or most ad campaigns being insincere and often self-righteous; that's what the people want."
Reminds me of something Robert McChesney has said --the whole excuse that what we're fed by the media is just what we want is bunk. In this atmosphere of media consolidation, the supply and demand relationship throws itself into reverse--the public wants what the public gets. The same images and stereotypes and products are drilled into people's heads, and demand is artificially created, consent is manufactured. And who says just because "people want it," there's automatically nothing wrong with it? Might and majority rule make right, huh? And I suppose the only progress should be that made by the globalized market, as accompanied by rampant commercialization imposing its unrealistic and arbitrary ideals (and no, they don't impact both sexes evenly. The playing field isn't leveled, and sexism doesn't fall as hard on those with gender privilege).
But sure, there's no reason to be skeptical of attempts at corporate social responsibility. Business is to be given the green light without hesitation--hyper-corporatism with a great big shit-eating grin.
They add another image and another concept to the highly bland and unrealistic landscape of advertising. Yes, they are still subversively advocating for women to do something about fat thighs, but no one is perfect. And in being realistic about the need for sales of their products, I think that Dove ads provide a valuable alternative image of what women can look like.
And, unlike this absurd campaign for anti-cellulite lotion by Nivea (Link
the Dove ads at least feature realistic bodies.
Uh, no? The men that the woman in question might want to attract are advocating for her to do something about the cellulite. Dove is just the middle man.
And you know what? That's fair.
I live in a house with 6 guys. Collectively, we spend a lot of time on looking good for girlfriends, for dates, or for the opposite sex in general. I don't know if you've ever seen an all-boys summer camp, but without the pressure of performing for women, a guy's hygiene tends to go by the wayside pretty quickly.
And you know what? That's fair too.
Because at the end of the day, I enjoy looking at pretty people. So do you. And while there's some social component to what we find 'pretty', a lot of it is biology. When they trained capuchin monkeys to use money, they were willing to pay handsomely for pictures of attractive monkey bottoms.
The fact is, no matter who you are, the majority of people in your life would probably prefer you put in effort to look attractive, whether you're male or female. This isn't oppression, it isn't crushing to anyone's self-esteem if they approach it in a mature fashion, and it's not a huge deal.