Bom-Chicka-Oh-Oh: What Happens When Brand Values Collide?
Thu, October 11, 2007 at 05:08AM Women are beautiful from the inside and should never be objectified as sex objects. Except when they are grinding for the produce clerk at their local grocery store.
A consumer group charges that’s what Unilever is saying out of both sides of its mouth with the positioning of its Dove and Axe brands. You can read the entire Los Angeles Times story here. In a nutshell:
• The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood accuses Unilever of being hypocritical for taking credit for Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty,” while running ads like the one above for Axe.
• A Unilever spokesperson counters: “Each brand effort is tailored to reflect the unique interests and needs of its audience.”
Both arguments are valid. But Unilever is a corporation, not just a collection of disparate brands. Either the company needs to reexamine its branding strategy from a corporate perspective, or consumers have full right to question just how “real” its commitment to “real beauty” is.
Reader Comments (6)
.....and what could those "unique interests and needs" possibly be?
Frank: Seems like you are dancing on dangerous diamonds.Some of these brands epitomize the hand that feeds you. Are you ready to bite the brand that feeds you? Just curious: from the current NYTimes magazine issue on design, quite good BTW, "...the fact that we now consume most of our information on-screen, not in print"
Au' courant, thinking, yes. But somehow, I still see people wax over the latest Bo Concept, West Elm and even Home Depot catalogs as they walk in the stores and grab the print catalogs. By the door. And they all do.And ask for the deal.
Hey, Dunk. Yep, you're right.
I respect the idea that individual brands can stand for whatever they want. (And they certainly don't need my approval to do so.)
But Unilever's Dove campaign transcended traditional product advertising. It brilliantly promoted and celebrated values, like helping young women build self-esteem. And Unilver has benefited greatly from that association.
Don't you think it's valid, then, to raise this question? If Unilver is a quality organization--and I believe it is one of the best in the world--shouldn't it be challenged to answer it?
If that simple idea costs me business, then I'll have to pay the consequences.
Consequences: I will give some corporations some leeway if they are doing this reporting in a socially responsible way. Here is a corporation that is getting it done...and these are not my rules. These are the UN Guidelines...http://www.unilever.com/ourvalues/
Thank you...this is the way to do it...MAJOR kudos. "Here's what is working, here's what we need to improve. We are working on it.
"
A great company that is concerned for our future, and their future, BTW...
Hey, Dunk. Are you saying, then, that you believe there's nothing wrong with the Axe ad... or its direct conflict with the principles of Dove's "Real Beauty" campaign?
I think there is everything wrong with the Axe ad. Many levels wrong. But I hate the "Real Beauty" campaign as well--i have two daughters and think the issues raised, the positioning are purely self-serving and debunkt. But it doesn't matter what I think, because I am not in either campaigns demo. I actually happen to agree with Richard Parsons on this one...large, public companies are going to sponsor the Apollo and still bring out movies like Mr. Woodcock. And most people accept the corporate schizophrenia. I judge a company by what it does, not what it says. Just like my presidents; I still like Bill Clinton. Because I'm not perfect, either. I am too jaded to expect that corporate responsibility does not also include some corporate irresponsibility. It's just a matter of balance.