The good, the bad, and the ugly of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty

The Ugly

Despite much criticism towards Dove’s ad campaign regarding their true motives, ideology, and efficacy, the real ugly side of the campaign is in their relation to brands like Axe. Dove’s parent company is Unilever, which is also the parent company of Axe and Fair & Lovely. These brands promote messages that are in direct contradiction to the message that Dove is attempting to promote, which is positive body image. Fair & Lovely, a popular brand marketed primarily to dark-skinned women, promotes a desire for “lighter skin”. This goes against Dove’s mission to be more accepting of all women’s beauty, by providing products that aim to make all women more alike. An example of an ad by Fair & Lovely depicts a dark-skinned woman who cannot get her dream job because of her skin colour, but once she uses their product, she finally lands her dream job, achieves good body image, and somehow boosts her love life. Although these ads have been criticized by advocacy groups for being offensive and demeaning (e.g., the All India Democratic Women’s Association), Fair & Lovely products are still being sold in over 38 countries and ringing in millions (Gandhi, 2007).

Axe is another brand under Unilever espousing a message that is in direct contrast to Dove’s mission; their ad campaigns strongly promote the “thin ideal” and sexualization of women. An example is the “Bow Chicka Wah Wah” (BCWW) campaign, which was directed toward young men and viewed through TV commercials or online. These young men could participate online through the “In Your Area” page, which shows a map supposedly depicting areas across the country where women have been affected by the Axe scents and offers videos of the BCWW girls driving in different places; viewers are instructed to “Choose a hotspot on the map below and watch women across the country lose their inhibitions, their minds ... and often their clothes.” The overwhelming acceptance of the campaign’s message is exemplified in its monetary success, where its US business grew from nothing at its launch in 2002 to over $500 million in 2006 (Hamm, 2007).

Therefore, Unilever is also seen as being hypocritical, and their association with Dove could potentially lead consumers to gain negative feelings toward Dove’s ad campaign and experience cognitive dissonance. However, the dissonance in this case may not be so easily resolved as consumers have to try to rationalize buying products that support a company that promotes the very thing they believed they were ‘fighting against’ by purchasing Dove. This may lead to source derogation, as many consumers may reject the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the creators’ of the Campaign for Real Beauty. Consumers may certainly question Dove’s commitment to their social mission. Dr. Susan Linn, director and co-founder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), sums up this point nicely: “The Axe campaign makes clear that any concerns Unilever has about girls’ well-being take a backseat to their desire to exploit stereotypes for profit. With Axe, Unilever is creating the same toxic environment addressed by its Dove Campaign” (CCFC, 2007). This “ugly” side to the Dove campaign has been discussed at length elsewhere, and we will not linger on it here.

From the editors

Angela Celebre and Ashley Waggoner Denton’s article was very thought provoking. In reading the title, I made some initial evaluations about the ad campaign, in my mind, before reading the article. Then, reading through their article, I expanded my thoughts and feelings toward the ad campaign. Given the evidence presented from previous studies, I am now unsure about how I feel about the campaign overall. What do you think? It is interesting how social psychological concepts can have simultaneously good and bad effects, as elicited through ad campaigns. Does “the good” outweigh “the bad”?

In analyzing “the good” of the ad campaign, Celebre and Denton apply the concept of social comparison. They suggest, and provide empirical support, for the idea that self-evaluations are higher when a target model is deemed more similar to the self. As such, it is important that “realistic” body type examples of women are displayed positively. I think this is an important point, as women represented in music, tv, and movies often set an unrealistic standard to compare oneself to. In addition, women that would be considered “real” often play negative roles in such media. I feel like these ads and proper, positive depictions of women of all sorts can have positive effects for society in general. They give girls and boys a positive image of women which could change public perceptions of “ideal” bodies and women and perhaps positively affect the treatment of women in society. What other positive societal outcomes may arise from such depictions?

On the other hand, “the bad”, as suggested by Celebre and Denton, is that these sorts of campaigns depicting the “real woman” can also have negative effects on body satisfaction in women (young and old). This makes sense to me, as well. As noted, some women and girls may still not live up to the standards depicted. A shocking note in this piece suggests that the Dove campaign was still very restrictive in casting! Moreover, the campaign may serve as a reminder of the thin body ideal. This is one point that struck me while reading this article. By using the term “real women”, it almost seems as if it might be increasing the salience of the difference between “most women” and “truly beautiful women”. A reminder that they might be “uglier” than what the majority of the media deems “ideal”. This may not be the case for most women, but it is something that came to my mind while reading this piece. What do you think about this issue? Further, I would wonder who gets to decide what a “real” woman is. Aren’t all women “real” women?

Finally, Celebre and Denton discussed “the ugly” of the ad campaign. Dove is owned by Unilever, which also owns other brands like Axe. Therefore, on the one hand, Dove is trying to empower women of all shapes, sizes, and ethnicity, but on the other hand, Unilever is potentially objectifying women in the Axe campaigns. One must ask at this point, is it all about the money? In my opinion: Of course it is. However, does it matter? Many social scientists agree that the idea of pure altruism does not exist. That is, deep down, all helpful or positive behaviors (particularly from corporations in the business of making money) have selfish motives. Ask yourself, though, if they are doing good and increasing some women’s self-image, does it really matter what their motives are? How else can the dissonance that results in learning about the Dove and Axe campaigns be reduced? I would like to hear your take in the comments section on this and the other issues raised in the article.

Adam Fetterman
Associate Editor

article author(s)