A Clear Eye.

Dove: Authenticity or Perfectly Executed Instrumentality?

personally i would vote for the latter - but i also think that really does not matter much...

let me tell you why:
first of all 'authenticity' - in the sense of being true to yourself - can come in many faces. on the far ends of the spectrum it can come either as pure and simple or it can come as a freaking lie in overdrive, totally undisguised - a story that by no means would even claim to be true.

on first look both dove's real beauty and the axe-effect qualify for authenticity.
but now we are saying: wait a minute, both brands belong to the same company! - and what we are realizing - or rather assuming now - is that both brands are part of a carefully balanced portfolio strategy precisely executed by some big player who wants to go fishing in various corners of the market.
so in terms of being more 'true' to unilever's nature as a 'professional liar' the axe campaign gets extra points for profound authenticity.

thanks tom, for picking 'axe' as example to discuss the dove case. one does not go without the other - ... a truly interesting observation.

like in fashion 'simplicity' is not the contradiction to 'glamour'. - both are the two faces of the very same coin that enjoys quite some high value nowadays.

pure and simple or ridiculously overdone - both qualifies for authenticity... - only wannabe does not. - and under this magnifying glass dove loses some essential points now...
but hey, i do not think that anybody really cares.

i think the dove campaign is a great and daring piece of work. not 100% convincing to me but more than sufficient for the market.
and they deserve credit for breaking with the stupid projection of conventional beauty that is not only driven by advertisers but by media in general.
thumbs up for dove.

and even more thumbs up for unilever. they are playing a good game on their various courts.

thanks tom.

At the risk of playing apologist, Unilever is a corporation not a [natural] person. What's to say that the employee/group behind the Real Beauty campaign is not communicating authentically?

Jens wrote:

> so in terms of being more
> 'true' to unilever's nature
> as a 'professional liar'
> the axe campaign gets extra
> points for profound
> authenticity.

Love it!

(This, of course, does not match the profile of, umm, worthwhile authentic communication; I doubt that any [potential] consumer is experiencing a profound feeling of connection with Unilever as a result of admiring Unilever's ability to "lie".)

Tom,

Provocative post! Thanks.

Social philosopher Pierre Levy predicted in his 1994 book, Collective Intelligence, that subjectivity “will most likely be considered the major economic activity of the next century.” He goes on to say, “(E)ffectively and subjectively lived human experience is not only the theoretical end of economic activity, but becomes the very condition for its existence.”

Ever since the rise of the big agency after the first World War, marketers have striven to establish in consumers’ minds an objective perspective of the ideal: the ideal person, mother, friend, etc., and of course, the ideal product for those who wish to become an ideal human being in the roles they choose.

But now, idealizations have lost much of their power to move consumers to action. In a cultural tectonic shift of epoch proportions, the consumer landscape has fragmented into subjective bits and pieces. Marketers can no longer define what is objectively ideal. The individual consumer now determines with increasing frequency what is ideal for him or her. Any attempt by a marketer to adjudicate what is ideal is an affront to many a customer.

Of no small importance in attempting to solve the riddle of why objectivity (independent of the individual) no longer rules the populace as it once did is the emergence of a consumer population dominated by people in the second half of life (age 40 and older). Given that adults 40 and older outnumber younger adults by 136 million to 86 million, it stands to reason that the zeitgeist – the spirit of the times – would strongly reflect the ethos of older people. One of the distinguishing characteristics of older people is a more subjective affect.

Objectivity is an affect that blossoms most strongly among the young. Why? Because the young have greater need to gain social acceptance. They sniff out the reigning consensus as to what is In and what is OUT; what is good and what is not; what will “get me ahead” and what will “keep me from getting what I want.” People in the second half of life are generally not as subject to prevailing consensus. This frees them to act with greater independence from social pressures. They act as s their own counsel more so than the young generally do. They become, in short, more subjective in forming perceptions, thinking about them and in making decisions.

I should also note that the younger brain is better suited to objectively processing information because it parses reality in greater detail and more categorically. That’s why people in their 20s are disproportionately accountable for great basic breakthroughs in science. Einstein, for example, was 26 when he published his Special Theory of Relativity. Isaac Newton was 24 when he invented differential calculus.

So what does al this have to do with the Dove “Real Beauty” campaign?

It is playing a hand that allows women to individually define beauty independent of others, especially marketers.

You raised a good point when you asked does it matter whether Dove’s team is acting authentically or not? In a subjective world, no, it does not matter unless a person ruminating on the issue thinks it does. In other words, no objective test exists that could determine beyond question whether the Dove team is acting authentically. We argue in Firms of Endearment that in today’s world it is not a question of whether a company is moral, per se, but is it acting, as your friend Grant McCracken suggests in a way that “works with contemporary culture, not against it.” To do so is good business. Good marketing. And guess what? A whole lot of girls and women are benefiting from the Dove campaign because it makes them feel better about themselves. That is a wonderful example of what Levy means when he talks about the importance of companies “producing subjectivity.”

Melinda Davis (The New Culture of Desire) has another way of describing campaigns like the Dove campaign. She calls it marketing based on the consumer’s need to heal. In other words, marketing is morphing from hucksterism to healing.

Thanks again for your great post!

David

I'd say that authenticity is a quality that has more to do with a product's 'heritage' than with the surrounding aura of communications. So soap is already a hard one in this rexpect, when I think about authenticity I normally don't associate it with mass produced factory stuff, but rather small batch, created with love by a lonely farmer or so, even though that may be a purely branded aura as well.

What I'm trying to say is that it's hard to be authentic if you're trying to produce something for everyone rather than for a small, precisely targeted group. Mass begets blandness, and that's about as far away from authentic as you can get. While the dove is targeted at a specific group of women, it does little more to covet these women than make advertising that they might feel good about. The soap hasn't changed. I wouldn't call that authentic.

I thought a bit about the previous comment saying that maybe the "the employee/group behind the Real Beauty campaign is communicating authentically?" which I take to mean that these people are serious about whay they write in their advertising and really do think that chubby women are beautiful. This would mean they are honest marketers, but adds little authenticity to the Dove brand: it's still little more than varnish and hardly are these beliefs reflected in the product.

Tom, thanks for the mention, I don't think I see any originality here. In fact, what the brand is doing is reaching outside itself to something that originates elsewhere. When the brand borrows in this way it can make a claim to authenticity. It is moving cultural meanings that started elsewhere. These already have a history. Thanks again. Best, Grant

Tom to answer your question, "how do you make marketplace decisions?", it truly depends on the product or service and its price tag. But since your post is about Dove, a product my family uses, it goes like this:

I'm rushing through Market Basket with the list my wife whipped together. I'm getting confused and frustrated b/c the store just recently moved everything around (after I finally learned where everything was). It's early evening and I'm tired and thinking about the day's events, and tomorrow's agenda, and my 401k, and a new idea I have, and things my children said.

Then I arrive at aisle 9 where the soap is...and stop. I see 100 choices and look for the white box with the blue dove on it. I pay not attention to the other soap boxes. (In fact, they are simply getting in the way of my goal: getting out of the supermarket and getting home.) I spot the Dove box and throw it into the basket and move on. My swift and unencumbered purchase decision was based entirely on one thing -- and it wasn't a Dove campaign or some other unauthentic or unoriginal Uniliver ad. Dove is the one soap that doesn't irritate my wife's skin.

Excellent post and comments Tom but perhaps this says as much about the worldviews of the relative audiences as the cynicism of Axe marketers.

Tom,
Great post, great comments, great subject. My personal and professional view is that if Unilever was branding the corporation, they should be authentic to the corporation. But when branding two products to two different markets, different rules apply.

I'm all for authenticity -- I don't think brands work without it. But if Unilever can remain authentic throughout the Dove campaign, to its Dove audience, and to the guts of the Dove message, then that's authenticity in branding to me. And ditto for Axe with its campaign and its message and its audience -- they are presumably authentic as well.

There are too many types of people and audiences and authenticities out there for any company to be able to address them with one product or approach, and by directing different messages to the different types of audiences, I believe more genuine communication can occur.

Don't we all like to be communicated to in the way we like to be communicated to? I don't like my husband to talk to me like he talks to his buddies at work, and the Axe audience wouldn't accept a Dove-type message -- do you think?
Marcia

A great post. I loved the 'Campaign for real beauty' from the git go but as was pointed out to me in Thailand the posters only ever used a certain dominant ethnic group for models and that was the White Skinned Chinese Thai. Skin whitening is a huge business across Asia and I can't see how Unilever can reconcile themselves to campaigning for real beauty when in fact they make a lot of money by trading on insecurity and ethnic stereotypes for what is effectively skin bleach.

The predominant colour for Thais is dark skinned across the country and it's always distressing to see rural ethic groups attempting to keep up with the cosmopolitan elite because of the pernicious effects of advertising white as the colour for successful people.

Campaign for real beauty was eventually pulled from Thailand although I dare say this was for reasons of local subjective beauty norms which are nothing to do with inner beauty. Vanity being a critical trait of this country.

Unilever often use their corporate logo for endorsement in advertising and I'd argue that this means they are inconsistent when it comes to the claim of real beauty. I could accept it if Unilever put a disclaimer on their skin whitening products that they 'embrace all colours' and if they use the dominant skin colour of a country in their advertising. Again, a great post worthy of discussion.

I've long since abandoned the quest for authenticity in corporate America. It just doesn't exist. Even Ben and Jerry's was sold to a large company.

That said, I think to lambaste Dove's "Real Beauty" and "Pro*Age" campaigns because the parent company also makes Axe is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I find the Axe ads objectionable, but are they any worse than other ads targeted at men?

In fact, I would say that it's entirely possible that the Real Beauty campaign might...just might...start some men thinking along different lines in terms of what constitutes attractiveness. And even if it doesn't, if it gets WOMEN out of the trap of tinking they're worthless because they are no longer, to use the vernacular, "fuckable" by teenagers, I'll take the corporatism with it. We get so few positive messages for women who aren't think and young these days.

The Campaign for Real Beauty is an excellent example of niche marketing. Nothing more, nothing less.

The social ramifications of any marketing may be ephemeral or enduring. Some things just strike a chord in us.

To read more into Unilever's positioning of its soaps is to lend credence to the idea that corporations really care what we think - beyond the product itself.

My favorite example of such hypocrisy? "Please drink responsibly."

I will talk “Dove” with my mother but talk “Axe” with my best friend.

Same person, different audience.
I think we all have two sides - being authentic is about admitting it.

Tom, Great point - Cheers!

Unilever is about selling, therefore, both the AXE and Dove campaigns are authentic. If Unilever was trying to promote the beauty and chastity of women then it would be less than authentic. When it comes right down to it wommen buy Dove and men buy Axe. It is marketing and it works. Is it authentic? Absolutely! Men and women think differently and they are enticed to spend their money differently.

I suppose it's about time that I chimed in with my opinion. And I think Rocky has hit the nail on the proverbial head with his comment: Unilever is trying to sell us stuff. And being true to their intentions, they have done an authentically commendable job of appealing to our senses of selves with both campaigns. Folks, they're after a transaction. It's that simple.

On the other hand, and I may post this question as a follow on: Do you believe the same to be true of companies like Patagonia, with an authentically passionate founder and leader at the helm? Again, I'd really like to know what you think/feel? Thanks.

Rocky. Have you ever overheard creatives struggling to think up positive ways to sell skin whitening products to ethnically dark people.

No, right?

But it's just about a sales transaction...ok...

In my opinion "authenticity" points to the sincerity or the lack of sincerity in a communication.

In this sense I think both Axe and Dove have a high degree of authenticity to them in that the crafters of these messages seem to be very centered in their audiences' values.

Subjectivity is very much key. We're looking at three discreet targets here: Axe. male 18-24, Dove. female 26-34. Unileaver. Investors.

the Authenticity of communication needs to be evaluated independently...

Is that so Ruben? How sincere is Dove by using non representative Thais?

Not very sincere is it Ruben. Here's a poem by a copywriter who had to write those kind of Ads that you seem to think are sincere.

http://kaiserkuo.typepad.com/ich_bin_ein_beijinger/2007/03/the_apology_let.html

Being that advertising is inherently saturated in our media space it is our responsibility to be eternally vigil... I believe that there are few messages marketing or otherwise that are without tflaw.

I think that everyone in the room recognizes that advertising is for the sake of pushing product (one way or another). this is a given.

there are a number of issues with the Dove campaign... especially with its launch anthem spot in the US. even if it was presenting images that challenged the conventional image of beauty (at the very least in the US they were), it still placed a certain credence in the place of beauty in the role of femininity.

my point is merely that its intent was anchored in the values of its target audience, similar to what David had posted in reference to the Melinda Davis book. I think I give them more credit, in that they continued to craft and refine their message as it was being rolled out. As that viral video piece hit the #1 spot in you tube I was throughly impressed.

I don't think we can look to advertising to change the social and cultural landscape, but I do think that we *should* look to advertising to reflect in a below-surface (more than superficial) way on the cares and concerns of the society it resides in.

That said. the any internationalization of a message is challenging indeed. you're dealing with a message being imposed on a whole different set of societal moires. in certain contexts various topics are still considered taboo. Charles, your point on ethnic stereotyping in Thailand (and indeed the whole of the pacific rim) is a point well taken. Certain topics will be resigned, and if it cannot spark debate, then it was dead off the line.

That said....
What conventions of beauty standards did the campaign for real beauty contest in Thailand? What could it have?

And while I'm here. I'll apologize for my ancestry's (Chinese) imperialistic conquest across Asia.

The link I provided in the post Ruben should answer your question. The poems not coded. More in your face than anything else.

I'm not sure you should be apologising for migrant Chinese economic supremacy across S.E. Asia. As you will know, most of the poor migrants who left China around the 19th century with little more than a mat and their work ethic wouldn't dream of returning to China. They have indigenous servants in their homes stretching from Bangkok, KL, Jakarta and Manilla.

Currently in S.E. Asia they are first class citizens whereas in the PDR, they aren't. Or you might belong to the wave of Chinese refugees who fled with their wealth in 1949 for fear of persecution from the communist party? As you will know, those two groups have their own tensions. But neither is in a hurry to relocate, well, not in numbers significantly different than say Westerners or the Japanese business populations.

Or maybe you're part of that whole generation directly linked to the cultural revolution and the great leap forward. It's always been of note to me that when it comes to China the Chinese have been most effective when slaughtering each other. It's for this reason that I urge a more authentic take on MNC's selling whiter skin to the darker locals. Imagine if that was tried with the Pakistani, Jamaican and Indian communities in the United Kindom? ... Quite.

Ah, Charles, but it is! Here's my post discussing the Unilever branding w/Pakistani movie star Simi Raheal that was a fellow delgate to the Women Leaders for the World summit...bleaching agents ARE being marketed in Pakistan, the U.K. and beyond...Hmn. http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=550

Of course that begs the question, 'but is it working?'

To me, I like to toss in that old Doug Floyd addage, "You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note."

Goes for skin tone and authenticity too...