-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
And then the white woman turned into an Asian after taking her shirt off.
How the hell is a black woman scared shitless about taking her shirt off when race is just a social construct though? :^)
How the hell is a black woman scared shitless about taking her shirt off when race is just a social construct though? :^)
R
RI 360
Guest
kiwifarms.net
lol if this dumb bitch was raised in Africa she'd believe there's gold in a bald men's skulls.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
Just how far does the rabbit hole go? If the white woman took off her white shirt and became an asian with a yellow shirt and that asian woman took off her shirt and became a mexican woman and that mexican woman took off her shirt...
K
KM 749
Guest
kiwifarms.net
This isn't the first time Dove has been bitten over trying to appeal to progress.
http://www.in-mind.org/article/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-dove-campaign-for-real-beauty
http://fortune.com/2015/04/15/why-doves-choose-beautiful-campaign-sparked-a-backlash/
The good, the bad, and the ugly of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty
Why Dove's 'Choose Beautiful' campaign sparked a backlash
http://www.in-mind.org/article/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-dove-campaign-for-real-beauty
http://fortune.com/2015/04/15/why-doves-choose-beautiful-campaign-sparked-a-backlash/
The good, the bad, and the ugly of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty
The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty has been called a lot of things, from a “game changer” and “a breath of fresh air”, to “hypocritical”, “sexist”, and “sneaky”. So why has the campaign, whose major innovation was to use ads that featured real women rather than airbrushed models or celebrity spokespersons, sparked so much controversy? Taking a social psychological perspective, this article attempts to address the good, the bad, and possibly even the ugly side of Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty.
Dove launched the “Campaign for Real Beauty” in 2004, in response to the findings of a major global study, The Real Truth About Beauty: A Global Report, which had revealed that only 2% of women around the world would describe themselves as beautiful (Etcoff, Orbach, Scott, & D’Agostino, 2004). The main message of the Dove campaign was that women’s unique differences should be celebrated, rather than ignored, and that physical appearance should be transformed from a source of anxiety to a source of confidence. This message was delivered through a variety of communication means, including TV commercials, magazine spreads, talk shows, and a worldwide conversation via the Internet.Despite the immense popularity and commercial success of the campaign, it has also been subject to much criticism. Many critics have relentlessly questioned and brought into focus the campaign’s mixed messages, which have left some consumers feeling ambivalent towards the Dove brand. On the one hand, the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty can be viewed as espousing a positive message, with the goal of changing women’s attitudes toward their perception of beauty. On the other hand, consumers are also aware of the campaign’s conflicting goal, one that is imperative and alike to all advertising campaigns, which is to increase sales. Taking a social psychological perspective, this article will attempt to address the good, the bad, and possibly even the ugly side of Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty. The goal of the article is neither to praise nor admonish the campaign, but simply to examine the complicated nature of advertising in today’s society, and to motivate consumers to take an educated stance with regard to advertising campaigns. How many of the ads you enjoy (or at least tolerate) actually reinforce stereotypes, or contribute to lowered self-esteem? It is an issue worthy of reflection.
The Good
One of the greatest achievements of the Dove campaign is that it initiated a global conversation to widen the definition of beauty. The main issue being targeted was the repetitive use of unrealistic, unattainable images, which consequently pose restrictions on the definition of beauty. Dove sought to change the culture of advertising by challenging beauty stereotypes; they selected real women whose appearances are outside the stereotypical norms of beauty (e.g., older women with wrinkles, overweight women). The real women were attractive and likeable to their female audience because they were relatable and provided a “fresh” perspective within the media. The campaign’s success is evident in the tremendous publicity that it has received, for example, with the models being asked to appear as guests on many popular American talk shows, including The View, Good Morning America, The Today Show, Ellen, and Geraldo. Media exposure has provided $150 million in free media time for Dove’s campaign (“Grand Prize”, 2007). The campaign has also been the recipient of numerous awards. For example, the online video “Evolution” won two Cannes Lions Grand Prix Awards in June 2007 at the Cannes Lion International Advertising Festival in France. Furthermore, “Evolution” received over 1.7 million views during its first month, making it the most viewed video on YouTube in October 2006. Overall, much of the campaign’s success can be attributed to it being the first digital campaign to drive participants to a supportive online community that reached over 200 million people worldwide, with over 26 million people participating in the campaign online (Springer, 2009). As proposed by Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan (2012), the engagement of customers (or potential customers) through the online campaign may build trust because “individuals will feel that the company cares about them and has their best interests at heart” (p. 135).
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.
Dove launched the “Campaign for Real Beauty” in 2004, in response to the findings of a major global study, The Real Truth About Beauty: A Global Report, which had revealed that only 2% of women around the world would describe themselves as beautiful (Etcoff, Orbach, Scott, & D’Agostino, 2004). The main message of the Dove campaign was that women’s unique differences should be celebrated, rather than ignored, and that physical appearance should be transformed from a source of anxiety to a source of confidence. This message was delivered through a variety of communication means, including TV commercials, magazine spreads, talk shows, and a worldwide conversation via the Internet.Despite the immense popularity and commercial success of the campaign, it has also been subject to much criticism. Many critics have relentlessly questioned and brought into focus the campaign’s mixed messages, which have left some consumers feeling ambivalent towards the Dove brand. On the one hand, the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty can be viewed as espousing a positive message, with the goal of changing women’s attitudes toward their perception of beauty. On the other hand, consumers are also aware of the campaign’s conflicting goal, one that is imperative and alike to all advertising campaigns, which is to increase sales. Taking a social psychological perspective, this article will attempt to address the good, the bad, and possibly even the ugly side of Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty. The goal of the article is neither to praise nor admonish the campaign, but simply to examine the complicated nature of advertising in today’s society, and to motivate consumers to take an educated stance with regard to advertising campaigns. How many of the ads you enjoy (or at least tolerate) actually reinforce stereotypes, or contribute to lowered self-esteem? It is an issue worthy of reflection.
The Good
One of the greatest achievements of the Dove campaign is that it initiated a global conversation to widen the definition of beauty. The main issue being targeted was the repetitive use of unrealistic, unattainable images, which consequently pose restrictions on the definition of beauty. Dove sought to change the culture of advertising by challenging beauty stereotypes; they selected real women whose appearances are outside the stereotypical norms of beauty (e.g., older women with wrinkles, overweight women). The real women were attractive and likeable to their female audience because they were relatable and provided a “fresh” perspective within the media. The campaign’s success is evident in the tremendous publicity that it has received, for example, with the models being asked to appear as guests on many popular American talk shows, including The View, Good Morning America, The Today Show, Ellen, and Geraldo. Media exposure has provided $150 million in free media time for Dove’s campaign (“Grand Prize”, 2007). The campaign has also been the recipient of numerous awards. For example, the online video “Evolution” won two Cannes Lions Grand Prix Awards in June 2007 at the Cannes Lion International Advertising Festival in France. Furthermore, “Evolution” received over 1.7 million views during its first month, making it the most viewed video on YouTube in October 2006. Overall, much of the campaign’s success can be attributed to it being the first digital campaign to drive participants to a supportive online community that reached over 200 million people worldwide, with over 26 million people participating in the campaign online (Springer, 2009). As proposed by Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan (2012), the engagement of customers (or potential customers) through the online campaign may build trust because “individuals will feel that the company cares about them and has their best interests at heart” (p. 135).
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.
Why Dove's 'Choose Beautiful' campaign sparked a backlash
Dove’s latest ad campaign calls for women around the world to renounce the media’s narrow, unattainable standards of beauty and replace them with a message of female empowerment.
So why are so many women so upset?
Kat Gordon, founder of the 3% Conference, which advocates more female leadership in advertising, called the “Choose Beautiful” campaign, released last week, “heavy-handed and manipulative,” while Jean Kilborne, the filmmaker behind Killing Us Softly: Advertising’s Image of Women, termed it “very patronizing.” Dove, The Guardian says, “has mastered the art of passing off somewhat passive-aggressive and patronising advertising as super-empowering, ultra PR-able social commentary.”
The new campaign centers around a nearly four-minute video showing women in five global cities being offered the option to enter a building through either of two doors: one labeled “beautiful,” the other “average.” Most women walk through the “average” door. But soon, amid swelling keyboards, their gaits grow more confident and their faces glow as a procession of them—the beaming woman with her daughter, the young woman in a wheelchair—warm to the inspiring possibilities for those who #ChooseBeautiful.
“It’s quite a triumphant feeling,” one woman says. “It’s like telling the world, ‘I think I’m beautiful.’”
Put aside the cinematics and girl-power uplift, and there are questions: What exactly made the women switch doors? Might it feel a bit immodest to tell the world, “I think I’m beautiful”? Why only beautiful or average—how about fetching or charming or magnetic? How is a beauty bar or body wash empowering? And what about men? Don’t they get a door?
“Choose Beautiful” is the latest iteration of Dove’s polarizing yet phenomenally successful “Movement for Self-Esteem” (called “Campaign for Real Beauty” until 2010). In 10 years, it has reportedly helped boost Dove sales from $2.5 billion to $4 billion. Ad Age has named it the best advertising campaign of the 21st century. Previous ads in the series include the 2005 “Tested on Real Curves” photos of non-models in white underwear and the 2013 “Real Beauty Sketches” video, by some counts the most viral ad ever.
Already, “Choose Beautiful” has reached more than 5 million viewers on YouTube, and the search term “Dove ‘choose beautiful’” yields more than a million entries on Google. Hundreds of media outlets have covered the video, some gushingly and credulously (Yahoo News said it “proves beauty is a choice”), though there are plenty of skeptics.
Comments on Buzzfeed reflected the Internet’s schizoid reaction. (The site posted, then removed, and then reposted a piece about the campaign though not, the editor says, because Dove or other Unilever brands have advertised on his site. “NOT EVERYONE IS BEAUTIFUL AND THAT IS PERFECTLY OKAY,” one commenter wrote. Another countered: “I find it odd that people disapprove of an ad whose whole purpose was to get women to all realize that they were beautiful.”
The video’s two-doors dilemma sprang from a 2004 Dove study called “The Truth About Beauty,” updated in 2011, that found that “only 4% of women around the world consider themselves beautiful”; most say they’re “average.” Its lead author was Nancy Etcoff, a Harvard evolutionary psychologist and the author of Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. (Etcoff has also consulted for cosmetics brands sold by Procter & Gamble, an arch-competitor of Unilever, finding that women who wear makeup are perceived as more likable, competent, and trustworthy than those who don’t—a result somewhat dissonant with Dove’s emphasis on how a woman sees herself rather than on how others see her.)
Etcoff appears on the “Choose Beautiful” Tumblr hub promoting mindfulness, a topic that seems slightly off-message, but her presence, along with the 4 percent figure, gives the campaign a scientific gloss. Unlike Etcoff’s work for Harvard, however, the study underpinning Dove’s message is not academic research; it’s market research, conducted by a division of Edelman, Dove’s PR firm.
Similarly, for the “Choose Beautiful” video, Dove did not perform an actual social experiment involving two doors. Nor did it make a documentary. And its well-credentialed advisory board and impressive partnerships not withstanding, Dove’s Movement for Self-Esteem is not a movement. It’s also arguable whether Dove’s campaign is rooted in science. For while it may be true that only 4 percent of women think they’re beautiful, the research also found that 71 percent women are satisfied with their beauty.
Dove didn’t choose to highlight that heartening statistic. Rather than #ChooseBeautiful, it went the other way. Meanwhile, Buzzfeed’s beauty editorresigned in apparent protest, ensuring another wave of articles about Dove’s latest campaign. Despite all of the controversy around this campaign—and partly because of it, and the attention it’s drawn—empowerment marketing has worked amazing well for Dove. This campaign is no exception.
Susan Chumsky is a writer and editor in New York City. Her last story for Fortune was about a literary agent who has made bestsellers out of cat photos.
So why are so many women so upset?
Kat Gordon, founder of the 3% Conference, which advocates more female leadership in advertising, called the “Choose Beautiful” campaign, released last week, “heavy-handed and manipulative,” while Jean Kilborne, the filmmaker behind Killing Us Softly: Advertising’s Image of Women, termed it “very patronizing.” Dove, The Guardian says, “has mastered the art of passing off somewhat passive-aggressive and patronising advertising as super-empowering, ultra PR-able social commentary.”
The new campaign centers around a nearly four-minute video showing women in five global cities being offered the option to enter a building through either of two doors: one labeled “beautiful,” the other “average.” Most women walk through the “average” door. But soon, amid swelling keyboards, their gaits grow more confident and their faces glow as a procession of them—the beaming woman with her daughter, the young woman in a wheelchair—warm to the inspiring possibilities for those who #ChooseBeautiful.
“It’s quite a triumphant feeling,” one woman says. “It’s like telling the world, ‘I think I’m beautiful.’”
Put aside the cinematics and girl-power uplift, and there are questions: What exactly made the women switch doors? Might it feel a bit immodest to tell the world, “I think I’m beautiful”? Why only beautiful or average—how about fetching or charming or magnetic? How is a beauty bar or body wash empowering? And what about men? Don’t they get a door?
“Choose Beautiful” is the latest iteration of Dove’s polarizing yet phenomenally successful “Movement for Self-Esteem” (called “Campaign for Real Beauty” until 2010). In 10 years, it has reportedly helped boost Dove sales from $2.5 billion to $4 billion. Ad Age has named it the best advertising campaign of the 21st century. Previous ads in the series include the 2005 “Tested on Real Curves” photos of non-models in white underwear and the 2013 “Real Beauty Sketches” video, by some counts the most viral ad ever.
Already, “Choose Beautiful” has reached more than 5 million viewers on YouTube, and the search term “Dove ‘choose beautiful’” yields more than a million entries on Google. Hundreds of media outlets have covered the video, some gushingly and credulously (Yahoo News said it “proves beauty is a choice”), though there are plenty of skeptics.
Comments on Buzzfeed reflected the Internet’s schizoid reaction. (The site posted, then removed, and then reposted a piece about the campaign though not, the editor says, because Dove or other Unilever brands have advertised on his site. “NOT EVERYONE IS BEAUTIFUL AND THAT IS PERFECTLY OKAY,” one commenter wrote. Another countered: “I find it odd that people disapprove of an ad whose whole purpose was to get women to all realize that they were beautiful.”
The video’s two-doors dilemma sprang from a 2004 Dove study called “The Truth About Beauty,” updated in 2011, that found that “only 4% of women around the world consider themselves beautiful”; most say they’re “average.” Its lead author was Nancy Etcoff, a Harvard evolutionary psychologist and the author of Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. (Etcoff has also consulted for cosmetics brands sold by Procter & Gamble, an arch-competitor of Unilever, finding that women who wear makeup are perceived as more likable, competent, and trustworthy than those who don’t—a result somewhat dissonant with Dove’s emphasis on how a woman sees herself rather than on how others see her.)
Etcoff appears on the “Choose Beautiful” Tumblr hub promoting mindfulness, a topic that seems slightly off-message, but her presence, along with the 4 percent figure, gives the campaign a scientific gloss. Unlike Etcoff’s work for Harvard, however, the study underpinning Dove’s message is not academic research; it’s market research, conducted by a division of Edelman, Dove’s PR firm.
Similarly, for the “Choose Beautiful” video, Dove did not perform an actual social experiment involving two doors. Nor did it make a documentary. And its well-credentialed advisory board and impressive partnerships not withstanding, Dove’s Movement for Self-Esteem is not a movement. It’s also arguable whether Dove’s campaign is rooted in science. For while it may be true that only 4 percent of women think they’re beautiful, the research also found that 71 percent women are satisfied with their beauty.
Dove didn’t choose to highlight that heartening statistic. Rather than #ChooseBeautiful, it went the other way. Meanwhile, Buzzfeed’s beauty editorresigned in apparent protest, ensuring another wave of articles about Dove’s latest campaign. Despite all of the controversy around this campaign—and partly because of it, and the attention it’s drawn—empowerment marketing has worked amazing well for Dove. This campaign is no exception.
Susan Chumsky is a writer and editor in New York City. Her last story for Fortune was about a literary agent who has made bestsellers out of cat photos.
R
RI 360
Guest
kiwifarms.net
The Chinese did it better.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2017
This is ridiculous.
Everyone knows the correct transformation sequence is white woman to black woman.
SMH rn fam
Everyone knows the correct transformation sequence is white woman to black woman.
SMH rn fam
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
All races are equally inferior to robots.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2015
I
IV 445
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Trans racialists are coming, folks. Be aware. Be scared.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
_Wice
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2016
Now that I’m reminded of that, was there any autistic rage towards Michael Jackson for this video then or now?
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
I'm still trying to understand this ad. I mean, what message are they even trying to convey?
I love how the reporter is forcing himself to sound outraged at something so silly.
If anybody offended knew what the chinks are doing in Sub-Saharan Africa, that ad wouldn't mean shit. Frankly I'm offended they can get away with both but we can't even have ads with masculine/feminine whites without being outnumbered by pee-oh-sees one to three.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2015
welp I know what brand of soap I'm buying now.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
She can't clean herself though. It'll be better if she's...cleansed...by a blonde man in a white robe who she thanks afterwards.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2015
So was there more to this ad?
Was she supposed to keep taking of shirts to be a different woman each time?
Maybe Dove really is dumb.
Was she supposed to keep taking of shirts to be a different woman each time?
Maybe Dove really is dumb.
