kimmy Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 It isn't the soap, it's the brand that is made to matter...I agree but only in so much as the brand, Dove, has tried to make a connection that no other brand may be doing. [i have no idea how all of the other brands advertize (I just pick the cheapest soap!) but my guess is that they suggest that their products are better than the leading competitor yadda yadda yadda something to the effect that their soap is special and can do special things.]After seeing the ad, a buyer will think: "They understand me." [usually, when it comes to making a sale, the best thing is to be a good listener. Buyers never want to be ignored regardless of whether they can be satisfied or not and they NEVER want to feel like they are being duped.] When the consumer goes to the shelf to choose a bar of soap, the product recognition may work. Dove will stand out even if the soap does nothing special. I think this somewhat captures the essence of the issue. If I might point to beer ads as a comparison... Many beer ads try to associate their product with a wild party attitude... and that likely misses the mark for a large segment of the buyers. "I know that buying a case of Molson will not transform my bland apartment into a bitchen party-zone," a buyer might say, "and even if it would, I'm not sure that I would want that sort of chaos going on in my home anyway." Other ads try to appeal to those consumers with a different approach-- emphasizing the product itself ("mountain-spring water," or so on...) or trying to associate it with a different mindset (an adult enjoying a beer with some friends, or suggesting that beer is the natural thing to drink while you're watching hockey.) I believe that Dove has recognized that a large portion of the marketplace for skin/hair/beauty products simply didn't identify with the traditional beauty product marketting, just as a large portion of beer buyers didn't identify with wild party advertising. Dove is attempting to appeal to women who are not gullible enough to believe a shampoo can give their hair the tensile strength of steel or to believe that they just need a couple of beauty products to look like the models in other companies' ads. Returning to this soap ad linked in the OP, of course the advertising campaign is in the interests of Unilever shareholders. (Shocking!) If it weren't, the campaign wouldn't continue and if I'm not mistaken, Unilever's share price has risen because of this campaign alone.But how is that necessarily contrary to the interests of young women? It would take an obsessive attachment to zero-sum thinking to believe that if Unilever gains, then someone else must lose. Rather, it seems that the Dove brand managers reckon that if they're going to blow some big bucks on advertising, they might as well do it in a socially useful way. I think they've suceeded. It's a remarkable video. Is it a zero-sum game? Kind of. Just as Unilever hasn't created the need for soap, it probably hasn't convinced women to use more soap than they used to. The amount of soap I buy remains fairly constant, as far as I can determine. I suspect that if this campaign has been successful for Dove, the success has come at the expense of Dove's competitors. I think your phrase "socially useful" raised some eyebrows in this thread. I know that you're by no means under the belief that Dove is running a public service campaign, but perhaps others might have thought you were suggesting that this campaign is motivated by altruism. I do think it's socially useful, even while still being at its core an advertising campaign. I don't see the two as being contradictory (although that's often the case.) At the heart, these are essentially attack ads. They're attacking the assumptions underlying their competitors' advertising. A while back, a local car dealership ran ads that blatantly lampooned some of their competitors' ads. ("Are you really dumb enough to believe that they'll give you a guaranteed $2000 trade-in for your rusted-out 1981 Chevette? Do you really thing the cost of that Free Trip To Hawaii doesn't come out of your own pocket?" and so on.) And while it was shameless dog-eat-dog competition, I think it was socially useful too. If it got consumers to apply a little critical thinking to some of the gimmicks dealerships use to sell their cars, then it was socially useful. And I think that the Dove campaign is socially useful in exactly the same way. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 (edited) [ Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Okay, here's the thing....aside from the disfigured or the ill or the morbidly obese......everyone 's looks cold be considered beautiful within the cultural parameters... Most every society formulates standards of 'beauty'. At any given time, some people fit better in that standard (whatever it may be) and some don't. Pretending that this isn't the case won't make it go away. ...it is not a matter of pretending...the standards are artificial, and meeting the standards is relatively easy for anyone with money. No really.......Babs Striesand of 1970 ... not a typical beauty, but a beauty..... Whoppie Goldberg.....you could pass with out regard anyday, but put her in Channel and voila! You wanna clue on the real deal? Look up the root meaning of glamour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 (edited) [ Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Dear kimmy, I think your phrase "socially useful" raised some eyebrows in this thread.August1991 did indeed. If it got consumers to apply a little critical thinking to some of the gimmicks dealerships use to sell their cars, then it was socially useful. And I think that the Dove campaign is socially useful in exactly the same way.I totally agree, but if some consumers used that 'critical thinking' to believe the Dove ad, then it is almost worse, for they now may believe that some advertisers are actually telling the truth out of benevolence, rather than selfishness. Mind you, I look at everything with a 'cynical eye'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Look up the root meaning of glamour Why? To confuse two different concepts? No becasue the "Glamour" industry plays a large role in deciding what the standards for beauty are..what is in and what is not. It amazes me sometimes when a woman I know goes and gets a makeover....the response that she gets from her friends and admirerers is telling. WHat does she get? Her eyebrows shaped--redefines the shape of the face Hair coloured to accent herskin tones Facials etc etc etc........ Fact is, oz didn't give nothing to the tin man........ Take any average looking gal and give her $700. to spend on hair and make up and another $1200. on clothes and I will wager she will turn heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 ...No becasue the "Glamour" industry plays a large role in deciding what the standards for beauty are..what is in and what is not. It amazes me sometimes when a woman I know goes and gets a makeover....the response that she gets from her friends and admirerers is telling. WHat does she get? Her eyebrows shaped--redefines the shape of the face Hair coloured to accent herskin tones Facials etc etc etc........ Fact is, oz didn't give nothing to the tin man........ Take any average looking gal and give her $700. to spend on hair and make up and another $1200. on clothes and I will wager she will turn heads. How is it possible for a woman to even conceive of improving her appearance as you describe if the measures of improvement don't exist? How can there be a concept of an 'average-looking' woman without a distribution in the range of attractiveness? Look here, we are discussing the proposition that 'every girl deserves to feel beautiful'. The statement itself posits a meaning and value to the term 'beautiful', otherwise how/why could it even be possible to deserve it? They're not saying 'deserves to feel glubsuff' or 'deserves to feel pezzloy'. For the statement to have a meaning, 'beauty' must have a meaning. The statement is clear enough in its intent ... that's not the problem. The problem is that it is wrong, because like Eastwood says in Unforgiven, 'deserve's' got nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 How is it possible for a woman to even conceive of improving her appearance as you describe if the measures of improvement don't exist? Look up the root of glamour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 How is it possible for a woman to even conceive of improving her appearance as you describe if the measures of improvement don't exist? Look up the root of glamour Oh, please -- I'm well acquainted with the etymology. I don't need to look it up. What the hell is it supposed to tell me? I don't think you understand my point ... If, as you suggest, there is no distinguishing relative degrees of beauty, how could someone get the idea to try? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 I don't think you understand my point ... If, as you suggest, there is no distinguishing relative degrees of beauty, how could someone get the idea to try? Archaic A magic spell; enchantment. You think that it is unreasonable the believe that the emphasis on transient beauty is a huge con.... I havenèt read ten beauty myth.....but I should...... But I will say there is a huge difference betwen beautiful and fuckable.....most people confuse the two.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 You think that it is unreasonable the believe that the emphasis on transient beauty is a huge con.... Let's be precise: I think it is unreasonable to con people into believing that the arbitrary, culturally promulagated standards of beauty can be over-ridden successfully by merely pretending they don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Bump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Thanks for redirecting me, August. I debated whether or not to even show the video to my preteen and teenage daughters. I worried that they might interpret it as, "Hey, look what makeup and hairstyling can do!" They didn't, but they didn't seem as disturbed by it as I was - I wanted them to get the message that no one is as perfect as the billboards, including the billboards, but they just seemed to accept that advertising is digitized and altered. Maybe my generation (I mean the over 40 crowd here) doesn't recognize how media savvy kids really are these days - they saw it as a matter of course, nothing new here. Don't get me wrong, they are definitely influenced by the media's definition of beauty, popularity, attractiveness, etc., but they seem to understand that there is a great deal of misrepresentation as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 I debated whether or not to even show the video to my preteen and teenage daughters.I tried that and I was surprised how quickly they took the keyboard away from me and forwarded the web site to friends.The ad is good and despite all the noise, the message gets through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Anyway, if you have any doubt about my point, do you know any Canadian (poor or rich) who has not sent their kid to an orthodontist to straighten teeth?What Leftist, out of solidarity with the poor in this world, would leave their child with crooked teeth? My family sent me, and I refused... only to regret it later and currently am now doing some dramatic dental surgery as an adult. It's suprising how much your smile affects confidence and your success in the world. I'd say what kind of irresponsible parent wouldn't force their kids to get braces if they had the money to afford it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Dear Melanie, Maybe my generation (I mean the over 40 crowd here) doesn't recognize how media savvy kids really are these days - they saw it as a matter of course, nothing new here. Don't get me wrong, they are definitely influenced by the media's definition of beauty, popularity, attractiveness, etc., but they seem to understand that there is a great deal of misrepresentation as well.This strikes me as a double-edged sword, and saddens me as well. I seems that 'misrepresentations', (or 'lies', as some may call them) are acceptable and commonplace. I bought a can of soup yesterday with a label that just made me shake my head. Campbell's 'Sirloin Burger' soup. There was a 'flag' or 'banner style' notice on it, (usually saying 'new and improved') and it read "Now with Sirloin!" I expect that means that they were previously lying, or that some legal ruling meant that they could no longer call it 'sirloin burger' if it didn't contain any percentage of sirloin. It seemed as though they were saying, "Ok, you caught us lying, but NOW it contains sirloin!" Just one of my personal 'beefs'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 I suppose that this 'campaign for real beauty' ad could have also been used for other products...like beer. "Turn your date into a hot bombshell!" Then have the 'transmogrification' occur as empty Budweiser cans pile up on the bottom of the screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdaddynews Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Throwing money and a SWAT team at it doesn't work Examples: Whoopi Oprah Streisand Roseanne 'Joe' from Facts of Life Melinda Gates All the money and make up in the world, and none of these ladies will ever be considered physically beautiful. I think posters are confusing the politically correct notion of 'overall beauty' with physical qualities of beauty. Also, I find it hard to believe that men in 1900 thought fat women were more beautiful than thin ones. I didn't need any media or ads to tell me that little Natalie was more beautiful than big Anita when I was in Grade 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 All the money and make up in the world, and none of these ladies will ever be considered physically beautiful. I think posters are confusing the politically correct notion of 'overall beauty' with physical qualities of beauty. Way to miss the point, champ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 I suppose that this 'campaign for real beauty' ad could have also been used for other products...like beer. "Turn your date into a hot bombshell!" Then have the 'transmogrification' occur as empty Budweiser cans pile up on the bottom of the screen. Yea. or "god invented beer so chicks that look like this will look like THIS after a few pints." The ad could actually be a good promotion for makeup: "See this doggy looking chick? look what makeup did - now she too can get laid. Hooray for makeup!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 All the money and make up in the world, and none of these ladies will ever be considered physically beautiful. I think posters are confusing the politically correct notion of 'overall beauty' with physical qualities of beauty. Way to miss the point, champ. It seems to me he's suggesting that you politically correct types have been missing the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 What is really wrong with physical beauty anyway? We need more of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 What is really wrong with physical beauty anyway?We need more of it. There's nothing wrong with physical beauty, as long as we all remember that beauty is only skin deep. When you say we need more of it, I wonder what you are doing to enhance your beauty on a day to day basis? Women are often marginalized or deified dependant on their outward appearance, regardless of their capabilities, intelligence, or other accomplishments. Beauty is part of who we are, but not our defining characteristic. And the pursuit of beauty, even when its attainment is unrealistic, is what I interpret the video to be taking a stand against (as well as selling soap, BTW). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngel_ Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 as one stands on a field of plants, he or she perceives the weed from the flower, plant to plant one may jump, higher, lower, no matter, just all plants. but to find a rose, you must love to bleed for it, and to find this, may mean raw power and sadness! but, that one might be fake, in the end you love but a simple plant, and that as a trick, it has you in its intent, and made you bleed... beauty lie's in the perception of the observer, not the image of the beholder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Women are often marginalized or deified dependant on their outward appearance, regardless of their capabilities, intelligence, or other accomplishments. And that's an exclusively "woman" problem? Give me a break. Everyone on the face of the earth deals with that. Although judging by the behavior and attitudes of lots of women I know, and judging by the articles and headlines I see on women's magazines I would suggest to you that women do a bang up job of perpetuating the emphasis on outward appearance. Let me guess: that's probably a MAN's fault somewhere down the line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.