« Friends of simplicity | Main | New article - The Enemy of Innovation »

Here we go again.

.

................................Dove women

Dove

This week's issue of the New Yorker has a piece about Pascal Dangin, one of the world's foremost digital retouchers. In the story, which you can find online at this link, Dangin is quoted as saying he extensively retouched photos used in Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty. What!?

Are you surprised?  You shouldn't be. This has always been a "campaign;" a staged statement.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  But to assume that this way of being was part of the DNA of the folks who run Unilever, the same folks who market Axe, is a little bit . . . umm . . . unreal?

.................................Axe women

You can find my other Dove rants here and here.

Posted May 8, 2008
Email this post

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef00e55217380b8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Here we go again.:

Comments

We are ranting in unison! Today marked my 5th post about the Dove campaign covering everything from the Axe attack, last week's Greenpeace hit and now this.

I imagine that they may be planning a strategic retreat from their untenable position on high moral ground.

Posted by: Martin Bishop | May 08, 2008 at 06:05 PM

Tom,
Agreed. It's an ad campaign that hit a nerve. "Real Women" had nothing to do with Unilever's beliefs. Yet there's this thirst among consumers to connect with brands with whom they have genuine shared beliefs. Patagonia delivers on this, Dove does not. If the ad agency creates the point of view, its' usually manufactured. If it comes from the company leaders, it's usually real.
Lois

Posted by: Lois Kelly | May 09, 2008 at 07:56 AM

Hi Tom.

Think this is quite a difficult thing, this Dove debate. It raises a whole lot of issues about substance over spin and intent over reality which are worth handling but the facts are worth being clear about - whatever one wants to think.

I have to declare a personal interest here: I watched the team at UL and Ogilvy develop the original programme from down the corridor. Knowing the folk involved (yes, largely women) and watching them work out what they truly believed and what they wanted to make the brand commit to - the difference they wanted to make in the world - for a company that hadn't ever tried to see marketing this way, I see the story rather differently.

Of course, most commentators on the latest twist (itself still only the subject of claim not evidenced) didn't see this and most find it easy to believe what they'd like to. Naturally.

Anyway, in the spirit of generosity, what about encouraging folk to do the right thing rather than criticising them for not being perfect (of course Patagonia are better at purpose-driven branding - they've learned to be!)?

Wouldn't that be more likely to bring about the change that we all want to see in marketing?

Hope this clears things up a little.

Posted by: Mark Earls | June 03, 2008 at 09:37 AM

Thanks for commenting Mark. I really appreciate the insights.

I think the disconnect is in the execution. Instead of feeling like a true cause or movement - which implies that we'd hear directly from those women who were involved in its creation, as well as have a chance to participate - it feels more like a one way campaign, albeit a very well done, Web 2.0 kind.

Posted by: Tom Asacker | June 03, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Won't disagree there, Tom. T'aint what you say so much as what you do, it seems.

Could well be an important moment in the long narrative of business' migration to the new world - that time when this part of this particular corporate found its 2.0 limits. Gives all of us advising organisations like this a clue as to where the elephant traps might lie!

But again to be fair to the folk at UL, I know they're trying hard to do better stuff (for what it's worth). Let's encourage them by showing them where they could/should go next..

Posted by: Mark Earls | June 03, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Post a comment