Dove’s ‘Real Beauty’ Pics Could Be Big Phonies: I am willing to give my first-born to the person who proves that this is true. UPDATE: Rats.

After monitoring the music and ads, parents and school officials say Show could be over for Bus Radio on Seminole County school buses

I’d like to take a stab at what Heather Armstrong wanted to twitter after the embarrassing debacle that passed for a mommy-blogger interview on The Today Show. Such a lost opportunity to introduce the blogosphere to the rest of the world.

So how, exactly, does a ridiculous book published by a vanity press get a review in Newsweek? “My Beautiful Mummy” book: Newsweek beat-up sucks most in

The Anti-Advertsing Agency wants to help some poor marketer break free of their soul-sucking career: Foundation For Freedom announces grant program: The 2008 AAAFFFA

The Cause Marketing Forum will feature professionals who have produced the “most outstanding cross-sector campaigns” like Unilever’s Campaign for Real Beauty. We all know how Unilever contributes to the very problem they are claiming to help in the Onslaught video, but did you know about the palm oil? From Greenpeace:

Any news about Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty fills me with sweet nostalgia.

Unilever To Launch Dove Digital Channel

The channel will feature an editorial board of experts, guest editors and “ambassadors,” all of whom will drive conversation around today’s “burning questions”–provocative, timely and relevant topics that are central to the real beauty debate, Dove says. Women will have the opportunity to join the conversation in a positive, educational and inspiring environment . . . and can learn about products . . . .

(Here’s my burning question: how do you people sleep at night?) 

It brings me back to the very first post I ever wrote, the post that got me started on the road to Parents for Ethical Marketing. Here it is, from October 2006, with updates noted.

Marketing to my daughters 

Zero Boss (update 4/14/08: blog no longer exists) turned me on to the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty’s film, Evolution. If you haven’t seen it yet, take a look. No denying that it is pretty cool.

There’s lots of praise out there for Dove and this campaign: “It is a real eye opener and I am happy that Dove has chosen to try and break people’s warped sense of beauty. It may save lives.”

Could these corporate heads actually be concerned about the future and well being of our girls? I’m a tad skeptical of anyone who is trying to sell me something, so I looked further.

The good folks at Dove tell us that their altruistic Campaign for Real Beauty was “fueled” by the results of their 2004 study, The Real Truth About Beauty. Their next step was to commission another study, Beyond Stereotypes: Rebuilding the Foundation of Beauty Beliefs.

Silvia Lagnado, global brand director for Dove:

“With this year’s Dove global study . . . we wanted to go a step further in our efforts with women globally and truly ‘walk the talk’ in helping women embrace real beauty.”

Bravo!

“The ultimate goal of this study, and associated programs launched upon its completion, is to help more women – especially young girls – to overcome and challenge harmful stereotypes and genuinely embrace healthy, authentic and positive ways of being beautiful.”

Kudos to Dove! It’s about time!

“Being a global beauty brand, we believe we have a clear responsibility to not only show different kinds of role models, but also to help the next generation – in particular young girls – to grow up without the pressure and the consequences of having to live up to unrealistic beauty ideals.”

Wonderful! Spectacu–, ah, wait a minute. Global beauty brand?

The study’s white paper explains that the research was “managed by StrategyOne – a specialist applied research firm based in New York.”

“StrategyOne adopted a rigorous, two-phased academic approach to explore and validate many assumptions about stereotypes, beauty, self-esteem and self-actualization in young girls and women.”

An academic “approach?” What exactly is an academic “approach” to research? I’m starting to sense that maybe StrategyOne is not housed at NYU.

From their website (update 4/14/08: site is now password protected):

StrategyOne
We help companies win new business.

Huh.

It gets better. Dove is owned by Unilever (NYSE:UL), makers of fine home and personal care products — for example, SLIM-FAST.

CEO Patrick Cescau, writes in their 2005 annual report:

At the start of 2005 it was clear what we had to do. We had to restore our competitiveness in the market and get the business growing again. . . . Our approach was simple . . . better execution, especially in the areas of marketing and customer management. . . .

Customer management? What about walking the talk?

From a Unilever press release for another product:

Suave(TM) Hosts the Ultimate ‘Hot Moms’ Soiree

“Beauty definitely has a place within motherhood and the truth is, when you look good, you feel better about yourself.”

Looks like Dove/Unilever has learned how to better manage their customers.

Listen, if we really want to help our daughters’ self-esteem, encourage them to use their brains when confronted by anything they see or read, especially corporate advertising. Teach them to ask the simple question: Who benefits?

Dove is supporting uniquely ME!, a self-esteem program developed by the Dove Self-Esteem Fund and the Girl Scouts of the USA. They’ll donate more if you buy Dove. I’m sure it’s a fine program, but I think we should take the money we’d spend on a year’s worth of Dove products and give it to a local nonprofit whose mission is to support girls — not make money for shareholders — like the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota here in Minneapolis.

Receiving an actual response from Procter & Gamble reminds me of the all the organizations I haven’t heard back from. Here’s an update of recent past efforts:

Nationwide Children’s Hospital (re: Abercrombie & Fitch naming rights): nothin’
Girl Scouts of America (re: affiliation with Unilever/Axe): nada
HarperCollins (re: publishing Mackenzie Blue): zero
Target (re: snow angel): zilch
Motion Picture Association of America (on ads for PG-13 movies): *crickets*

Commerical Alert offers us another chance to contact HarperCollins and let them know we’re not so thrilled with their new product-placement/advertising-filled books for tween girls by Tina “parents are tweenabees” Wells.

Unrelated: I did hear back from Northwest Airlines after I filed a complaint on their website. They gave me 5,000 miles, too. Now if they can just get me to Boston on time.

I write this as I finish off a box of Tagalongs. 

Patricia Diaz Dennis, chair of the board of directors for the Girl Scouts, was recently here in Minnesota to address the newly merged Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin River Valleys. In a televison interview, Diaz Dennis addresses what girls have to deal with today in the midst of a celebrity culture: the messages of how to dress and how to act in order to be a woman. She says that the Girl Scouts are the antidote to those messages.

Then how can the Girl Scouts accept funding from a corporation that produces this?

The recent Axe print ads featuring Hillary Clinton pushed me over the edge. I sent the following letter to Diaz Dennis and to Kathy Cloninger, the Girl Scouts’ CEO:

I was a Girl Scout in the seventies and my daughter is a Girl Scout now. I am writing to express my deep concern over the Girl Scouts of America’s affiliation with the Dove Self-Esteem Fund.

I am sure you are aware of the controversies surrounding Unilever’s claimed support for girls’ self-esteem (through the Self-Esteem Fund) while continuing to advertise their Axe products using degrading and sexist marketing. And you might be aware of their production of skin-lightening products marketed to women in India and other countries as a means to “gain confidence.”

And you may have even seen their latest ad campaign for Axe products, depicting Hillary Clinton wearing an “Obama” button.

I understand that Unilever is a very large corporation with many different markets. And I understand that any corporation you partner with may have some components which do not align perfectly with the Girls Scouts’ mission.

But for the Girl Scouts to be directly associated with a corporation that continually undermines the very core of what Scouting is today – a woman running for President will still feel silly around boys — is reprehensible.

Turning a blind eye to these marketing messages is one reason we still have a problem.

Can you please explain to me why this relationship with Unilever continues?

Thanks for your time.

I’m not surprised that they didn’t respond to me, even after a second request for comment. What could they say? How can an organization that promotes healthy girls possibly justify a financial relationship with Unilever?

We’ll continue to support the Girl Scouts and their volunteers for taking time to invest in our girls’ futures.

But not Dove, nor their Self-Esteem Fund. You can still let Unilever know that they cannot claim to help in the fight for girls’ self-esteem while producing ads that degrade women.

Related posts from other sites:

The Antidote to Women’s Liberation
Axe and Unilever strike again: Clinton as slavering brainless schoolgirl
Scent of a Woman
Hillary Sexism Watch (Axe edition)
How Sincere is Dove?
Boycott Unilever/Dove
Internet guerrilla attack exposes Unilever ‘hypocrisy’ of Dove girls and dirty dancers

Brought to you by the makers of:

The Axe Effect . . . Imagine the power of Axe

An Axe rep from Edelman PR gave The Poke with No Name a heads up (way to generate some viral buzz) on this ad that appeared in Chicago and New York:

Anyway, with the recent Gallup Polls showing Obama support among female voters up 13 points in recent days; and given the “lovefest” between Obama and Hillary after the last debate, I thought you might get a kick out of a new print ad (attached) from AXE that will premiere tomorrow in newspapers in Chicago and New York City. Is the “lovefest” the result of The AXE Effect? We’d like to think so.

 And the reviews are pouring in!

. . . a primo example of the laziest, easiest type of ad concept . . . .

This might be an all-time low for both Hillary Sexism Watch and for Axe ads. And that’s really saying something.

Can we look forward to a CGId Clinton doing the Bom Chicka Wah Wah dance next? Oooh! Maybe a dubbed Obama extolling the virtues of skin whitening creams! 

Well, something had to pull me out of this five-day virus-induced stupor.

This is worth another click to the CCFC form that will transport your complaint to Unilever, makers of Axe and Dove.

We’ve managed to stay away from Club Libby Lu because we avoid malls at all costs.

Which is not always easy. Remember, I live in Minneapolis, home of the MOST HUGEST AND COOLEST MALL IN THE UNIVERSE.

This hysterical post at Daddy Types (which I found via a scraper site, of all things) was written as a rebuttal to a comment from a Libby Lu employee on a previous post.

Daddy Types successfully counters the commenter’s argument that Club Libby Lu is really a saint-like retailer:

. . . Club libby Lu donated an insane amount to St. Jude’s cancer research hospital . . . [and] we have been supporting Girl scouts of America for years now.

This is a perfect example of the conundrum people face when a company touts their “good works” as a reason to continue buying their product.

After all, don’t we want to support companies that do good work?

Another example is Unilever:

Too many girls develop low self-esteem from hang-ups about looks. Consequently, many fail to reach their full potential later in life. The Dove Self-Esteem Fund is an agent of change to educate and inspire girls on a wider definition of beauty.

On the surface, bravo! However, a closer look reveals that Unilever still makes a profit from women who believe that their skin isn’t the right color and from men who believe that their sexual desires should be reserved for naughty supermodels. Neither of which seems to be inspiring our daughters with a “wider definition of beauty.”

And McDonald’s is asking kids to Bee Good to the Planet by making an “eco-pledge” for the environment. But doesn’t that Happy Meal still come with a useless piece of plastic that will most likely live forever in a landfill?

Responsible marketing is more that just another sales strategy. But these superficial campaigns work. Corporations count on the fact that no one will take the time to peek behind their curtain.

Next time a company brags about its social responsibility? Take a closer look.

Action: Support the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s initiative to Tell Unilever: It’s Time to Ax their Exploitative Marketing