I'm a very creative person. I have lots of creative ideas, I spend a lot of time writing, and coming up with creative concepts. However, I have the dexterity and manual skills of a foetus. I cannot create anything with my hands, as my hands are very prone to destroying and breaking things. Recently it was my girlfriend's birthday and I baked her this cake. It's pretty shoddy looking but it tasted nice, and it's the best thing that I ever made with my hands, and I am very proud of it.
This article on Brand Republic outlines the fact that Unilever has been criticised for giving out mixed messages about women and the beauty industry. The YouTube video from the article (included below) is a parody of Unilever adverts spliced together to make a very interesting point. It is without doubt guilty of giving out mixed messages but how in the wrong is it?
I'll be the first to admit that this is funny. It's always nice to see people "socking it to" the big brands and picking them up on their hypocrisy and their dodgy dealings. The video makes a very interesting point - Unilever owns both the Lynx (or Axe depending on where you are) and Dove brands and both are giving out very different messages. One is campaigning for 'real beauty' and highlighting the dangers of the superficial beauty industry, whilst the other more or less objectifies women and promises you that a few sprays of a very cheap deodorant will have them stripping off and oiling themselves up quicker than you can say "pffft, like that'll ever happen". I'll let you figure out which is which.
Dove has very famously done very well by striking back at the beauty industry and telling women that they are beautiful however they look and that true beauty comes from within. The real genius is that they still managed to sell beauty products off the back of this. It's like a car advert telling you that driving is overrated and you should probably get the bus anyway. But, somehow it works and it has worked very very well and given the Dove (and in turn Unilever) brand a massive boost and a very clear brand image: one of a caring, benevolent company doing something genuinely different and selfless.
So how does that sit with the Lynx (I'm going to stop saying "or Axe" now because Axe is a stupid name and the idea of summoning women with "the axe effect" has always sounded rather frightening to me) brand? I'm going to try and break down some of the main points and have an argument with myself whilst talking authoritatively about it all. Then I'll try and make my mind up at the end (I'm still not sure where I sit on this one)
Lynx and Dove are totally separate brands targeting different demographics and as such the messages in their advertising do not have to run parallel and can indeed be quite contradictory of one another.
But they're owned by the same parent company, and therefore Unilever is endorsing two completely opposite messages about women, and as such should not be preaching about the negative effects of how women are portrayed by the beauty industry when its own adverts feature scantily clad women pole dancing.
That's a good point, but the adverts aren't made by the same agencies, so perhaps the agencies are ultimately responsible.
Unilever would have to approve the concepts and its marketing managers would be well aware of what was happening.
But each brand within Unilever will almost certainly have a different marketing manager
They should speak to each other a bit more, they need a water cooler!
That's a stupid point...wait are you writing all this down? You bastard!
So, in conclusion: I need help and so does Unilever. I think that it is unfortunate what has happened and it almost certainly isn't any one person's fault, but perhaps someone somewhere along the line should've pointed out that they were in fact being really contradictory and sending out mixed messages. The two brands are totally separate and they target different audiences so it is entirely understandable that they portray women in different ways: ways that will appeal to their target market. However, I do think that as they fall under the same umbrella that is Unilever they perhaps need to have a rethink and bring the company's thinking more in line or face more criticism.
It's definitely a difficult question, and I think to answer it properly I would need a much greater understanding of parent companies and corporate responsibility, but with the knowledge that I have of advertising, and the opinions that I have as a man on the street, I think that Unilever has done wrong, but unwittingly, and does not deserve to face any ramifications, but it does perhaps need to have a bit of a rethink about where it stands as a whole company, and how its own image is affected by the individual brands that it owns.
