If you’re not transparent, people will call you on things. And when they do, you look worse and dumber than if you just said what was true to begin with.
While it might be a very noble thing for Dove to spend a bunch of money to tell little kids that they don’t have to (or shouldn’t) strive to look a way that’s either impossible or impractical, it just makes them look hypocritical and stupid that they spend as much or more money telling people that there is a right way to look and, um, “it’s exactly the way we were saying in that other ad is not the right way”.
We (consumers) are savvy now. We’ll catch you on these things. And these guys caught them.
Props to Ed for creating the video and props to Pole Position for putting forth the effort and resources. It goes a long way when a marketing company is the group telling us that if you’re not transparent, you’ll get nailed. They’re usually the ones trying to hide it from you.
One caveat to this: Unfortunately, you’re comparing apples to oranges (or more appropriately, brains versus balls). You’re looking at the current trends in gender-specific advertising. It’s really very simple. Women will respond to a message of empowerment, while advertising to men is best summed up by the Jeff Foxworthy joke about what men are really thinking about:
“I’d like a beer, and I’d like to see something naked.”
Dude Ads, as I call them, are blatantly sexist, and also more than a little bit homophobic. See how men that could be considered ‘metrosexual’ are shown in ads, as well as those who could be considered ‘sympathetic’ (read: weak and effeminate). And Dude Ads revel in the crudest forms of humor. But men respond to it, even those who don’t fit the stereotypes portrayed within.
The manufacturers do deserve criticism for the inherent dichotomy of their adverising. But it works, and that’s what matters most.
You’re right, for sure, about advertising. But the point I was making was that while I think we all know why they did each of the ads, neither of them was actually real. A better word for the title would have been authenticity. If the company behind the products really cared about changing the image girls hold as an ideal, they wouldn’t be perpetuating the same image in ads geared toward guys. It may work to sell products, but it’s not an authentic position or them to take, and they got nailed with that video that points out how they’re talking from both sides of their mouths.
I like the point of the video — enough pressure to do the right thing can force corporations to do the right thing (to save their corporate image, or improve the bottom line), but the expectation that public companies have or should have a conscience doesn’t jibe with reality.
With a few exceptions (Starbucks, Google, etc.), public companies are driven by little more than profits and stock price. Boards demand it because shareholders demand it. If throwing sexy men at women sold Dove soap, or appealing to male insecurities sold more Axe cologne, we would no doubt see those ads.
Their reputations can be targeted and tarnished (and they can be regulated), but public companies will always operate in the best interest of their shareholers.
I had a blog post on the 8th:
http://fuze.typepad.com/fuzeblog/2007/10/dove—-viral-do.html
about these ads as being good…an opinion which i stand by. I heard the motivation behind them from the CEO of Ogilvy who ran the original campaigns.
I added some comment to my original post in some agreement with Ed’s position on the two-sided nature of the brand [dove]. But, in context of the advertising and audience, the Axe demographic and the Dove demographic are not the same. So, i see the Dove ads still carrying a solid message to the audience intended (young women), and I see their Axe effort as a separate effort approaching a completely different market (mid twenty’s men). Also, this debate isnt new, since 2006 there have been articles debating Dove’s approach to “real beauty”, while another Unilever brand Axe exploits sexuality.
Alas, its all just advertising…it’ll always be filled with half truth. Think about the new tag that is going on the Aquafina[pepsi] bottles indicating the water comes out of a hose – most of what we buy isnt because of moral correctness, its just because of advertising.
Hope to see you again soon. You did a good job today.
But that’s the point. Authenticity is a moot point in advertising, because you’re being sold products and such in the form of an ideal. While the ideal may be more palatable (or less) to segments of society as a whole, marketing and merchandisng cares not one whit about authenticity. Advertising is about knee-jerk Pavlovian reactions, with a little information to dress it up. Women respond to intellect and empowerment, while men respond to T&A. Simple as that
As I said before, Unilever does deserve criticism for the dichotomy inherent in its gender-based advertising strategy. But the simple truth is that it works. That is why Unilever advertises its products as it does. And trust me, sexist (or just sexy) ads are done far better (not to mention raunchier) in the rest of the world than they are here, because outside American borders, advertisers actually expect their audiences to be INTELLIGENT.
Perhaps the real problem isn’t the presentation of sexual themes in advertising to men, it’s the dumbing-down thereof to reach the lowest common denominator.
Lowest common denominator is both funny and popular.Case in point:
http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com
That blog represents everything that is both wrong and right in the world…
Have you ever thought that those Axe adds are just ironic? They seem pretty benign to me. The bigger problem is that the media portrays us as outlaws and individualists, but the crowd @ the mall tells a different story. Those adds really only speak to dudes with the words “Abercrombie” or “Hollister” on their chests.
Authenticity is moot because we let it be moot. But we can demand it. And that’s what the video is doing. It’s showing what might be mindless consumers of advertising the side by side comparison of ads both produced by the same company to separate you from your money. The video wasn’t done because we already hold companies accountable for what they’re doing. It was done precisely because advertising is not authentic, and if you follow, you’ll think twice before buying into it, if you’ll pardon the pun. So you’re correct: currently, people don’t seem to care, but by harnessing the power of the web and producing a video that grabs you, maybe people will care and start to demand that companies selling something get real.
Ryan, are you trying to fire up the ‘direct action’ bandwagon? Have you paid attention to what I wrote? I’m sorry if I sound condescending, but you just…..don’t……get…….it. Authenticity is irrelevant in advertising. Arbitrary moral standards of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ simply don’t apply in advertising, and they matter even less. Game, set, match.
Go ahead, stand tall. Take the moral high ground. For the most part, I sympathize with the issues. But it’s all sound and fury signifying nothing. Good luck and farewell, bunkie. Don Quixote has nothing on you.
Before this turns into the insult-ridden thread that it could easily become, I’ll try to make it simpler. I paid attention to what you wrote, then said to myself, “that has nothing to do with my point.” My point is that we, all of us, can do something to change the way advertising works. Case in point: THEABOVEVIDEO. Someone did something. If you choose to watch it and say it doesn’t matter because you’re an ad exec who knows better than us, then why the comments? But to come in and say we can’t do anything is wrong. Someone DIDSOMETHING. If you weren’t aware of the connection before, you are now. If you don’t care, then don’t care. But to say it makes no difference is disingenuous at best. It affected me, and I appreciate it. Acting like I’m running some fool’s errand is insulting and wrong. It was a good conversation while it lasted, though.
Oh, and before you start in on me about marketing and advertising and what applies in them, you might want to figure out if I maybe have any history in the area.
it isn’t a moot point. it WAS, but that’s changing.
Why? Because if you cross the line from advertising (which we all expect to be chock full of lies) to “viral or social marketing” you start playing in a different field. People expect you to be truthful, because they found out about you through a friend- and by extension, your friend’s reputation suffers if you lie or tell a half-truth.
That causes people to seek out the truth. So does the information market- people want to expose you for their own benefit these days (for traffic) so there’s another motivation to stay truthful.
Add to that the fact that Dove is wagging their finger at the entertainment and beauty industries – you don’t take a stand on an issue if it turns out you’re part of the “bad example” you’re pointing out. It’s not good viral marketing- and in time the campaign will suffer for it. Earlier this year I pointed out a viral campaign that tried to pull similar crap and it’s since been pulled from youtube by the author because the comments got completely filled with people calling out their bullshit. Dove’s much larger, but they will feel the sting.
So, sure- people used to be able to say “well, you can’t expect companies to tell the truth in advertising.” But if they say that now they’re missing the point- We CAN expect a certain amount of honesty, and we’re proving that now with the help of the web to give us a voice.
No thanks, Jerzee. I made my points, and you countered them. I made more points, and you started to get snotty. Fair enough. Snotty self-righteousness scores no points with me. Go tilt at your windmill, Quixote. Commercials are about as realistic as ‘Survivor’, and that’s not changing any time soon. But this is your blog after all, so blow as hard as you want, bunkie. I won’t bother coming back to pick up after your mess.
But as long as you’re going to be out there on your soapbox, why don’t you go put on a ski mask and vandalize a McDonald’s while you’re at it? I’ll remember to laugh at you. Heartily.
I think I’ll end my farewell address with the following quote:
“My ancestors were Torofecundians. They had the ability to smell bullshit a mile away.”
That’s unfortunate, force_ten. Especially considering you were the one who didn’t “want to sound condescending.” I think it’s clear we’re both trying to make points on different issues. That’s all well and good. I have no idea what brought the insults on, but whatever.
The point here is to discuss and hope that everyone learns something. It’s not to win. I’m sorry if all you got out of it was that I somehow hate corporate America and advertisers. That’s just not the case. In any case, thanks for participating and keeping it civil for most of your stay.
Ryan Jerz is an all-around good guy who shoots photos and video, builds websites, and works in athletics at the University of Nevada, Reno. He received a Masters Degree in 2007 from the University of Nevada, Reno's Reynolds School of Journalism.