A Dove advert accused of racist messages which has been spread across the internet today, demonstrates just how easy it is to gain bad publicity.
One can hardly be surprised over the accusation. Personally, I understood two messages from the advert:
· Dove body wash will make you lighter
· Dove body wash will make you thinner
Dove has however denied the claims with a public statement stating that "All three women are intended to demonstrate the ‘after’ product benefit... The ad is intended to illustrate the benefits of using Dove VisibleCare Body Wash, by making skin visibly more beautiful in just one week." The company also addressed the apparent misunderstanding on their Facebook site, encouraging fans to share their thoughts about the advertisement.
This is not the only PR misdemeanor the company has encountered. Only in 2008 was Dove accused of destroying rain-forests in Indonesia, and just last year the company was criticized for a "not so real beauty" model description for their Real Beauty Campaign.
Dove knows its market and many will argue that the advert was an honest mistake with no intention of causing offence. From a PR perspective, however, the advert has brought more interest to Dove than any other of their recent campaigns, with no long-term damage done to the company.
Bad planning or deliberate attempt to create publicity? I will leave you to judge that.
Genius from a Marketing perspective. I guess there truly is no such thing as bad publicity esp if PR damage control is further exposure in the media. Will have to be implemented meticulously though as consumers are fickle. Done right, I reiterate, genius, if damage irrevocable, bye bye consumer loyalty.
ReplyDeleteHowever, discriminatory and vile message in Advert, clear as day.
I guess raised eyebrows lead to eyes wide open and open eyes are crazy shoppers. Mission accomplished sadly (hypothetically).
Yes, apparently there is no such thing as bad publicity (as long as the damage can be controlled.) Seems they have gotten out of this one!
ReplyDeleteI can see where you are coming from. However I do not think that I would have reached this conclusion if I had just looked at the advert at a glance without hearing your interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI would probably, as was apparently intended by Dove, assume that all three women were 'afters'. The reason I would not jump to the rascist/ fattist conclusion is based on the picture as a whole, rather than just focusing on the unfortunate positioning:
All three women are happy and shinny looking... if the darker/ bigger lady was meant to be the 'before' (a) I am sure she would be looking dull and unhappy as they do not want to suggest you would be looking glowing and happy without dove, even if up close your skin was not great (b)why would there be three women - what is the middle lady meant to represent? someone halfway through her shower, therefore still a little dark and chubbier than the skinny white woman? - if it was before and after there would surely just be two...and (c)this would be completely contrary to Dove's whole 'natural woman' campaign. For these reasons, and knowing the background of Dove's campaign and image, I can't help but think that this was probably just a poorly executed and badly thought through attempt at being PC by including two ethnicities and ladies of varying size....
If anything the 'outrage' over this advert might be more of reflection of this totally out of control PC'ness that is casuing the world all to be offended by anything that is not 100% gender, age and race neutral.
I don't know. It is of course far more interting to come to the conclusion that this is a Dove 'double bluff' publicitiy stunt than the alternative. Namely that the person who approved this advert was not wearing his/her 'PC' head when giving his/her approval (please note gender neutral writing here - I don't want to be accused of being sexist by suggesting that the idiot who sent this out on Dove's behalf was a man or woman (although s/he was probably one of the two ;))).