Unilever’s credibility is in question recently after releasing two conflicting campaign messages. Dove Real Beauty has real women battling against the MSM pressures for unrealistic beauty, while Axe Body Spray exploits the stereotype of women.
Hypocrites or just the business of branding?
Dove Real Beauty fans are not pleased with Unilever’s contradictory messaging and have started a campaign of their own: “Ax the Axe Campaign.”
Unilever responded to the negative claims in a NYTimes article by explaining this is how the marketing business works:
Anita Larson, a Unilever spokeswoman, called the Axe campaign a spoof “not meant to be taken literally.” “Unilever is a large global company with many brands in our portfolio,” she said. “Each brand effort is tailored to reflect the unique interests and needs of its audience.”
The Axe campaign also has a music video featuring a fake music group, the Bom chicka wah wahs, dancing around in lingerie. (Granted this campaign may be geared toward college-aged males, but I am not sure what objective this video is trying to achieve. To me, it looks more like a Victoria Secret ad.)
Similar images of women in lingerie are used in the Dove Onslaught video–except the images are shown for shock value.
If this is just business, why all the fuss?
Dove fans, myself included, didn’t see the Real Beauty campaign as just another marketing scheme. It transcended other campaigns and was a chance to change the way society views beauty. For Dove and the parent brand, Unilever, it was a chance to position itself as socially responsible.
I guess some things never change–image is everything.
Megan,
I think you’re maybe missing the boat here.
Many parent companies (Unilever, Proctor, Colgate, etc., etc.) output a plethora of various category brands under their respective flagship brand. Why? How else could they ever hope to capture as close to 100%, in this case, of people who take a shower?
Most consumers never see or even really care that two or more brands are manufactured by the same company in the same category to multiple audiences. From a PR and marketing standpoint, it’s seen as smart business and gives many of us in this business a lot more opportunities to make a decent living.
Unilever has hit marketing home runs with two audiences that couldn’t be further apart. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the “Ax the Axe Campaign” was invented by a PR person, like yourself, AT Unilever.
To create a conflict within your own two brands that elicits an emotional brand loyalty reaction on both sides, draws additional free attention/publicity and probably an eventual spike in sales of both brands in their stable is pure genius. What company is going to walk away from that opportunity?
Maybe, if someone got REALLY fired up about it, they might even start a blog about it! More free publicity? Sure.
Dave, point well taken.
It must be the “PR Pollyanna” in me that finds it hard to believe an ‘ethical’ company would do such a thing.
However, after a little searching, I found a professionally edited version of Dove Onslaught/Axe campaign video. It seems to back up your point pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u6Qh099AK0.
It does a nice job of promoting both brands without ever mentioning that parent company…hmmm. Interesting.
Megan,
I have to question Unilever’s integrity after reading this post, but it’s not because of the conflict of interest between its two ad campaigns. As Anita Larson said, the company has many brands that are tailored to specific audiences. I would assume that each campaign was developed by two completely different teams of professionals anyway.
But, my issue with the Axe campaign is that it’s not sending out a message about the product. It’s sending a very blunt message about sex — do it! I realize that we live in a sexually liberated society, and, in a sense, that’s OK. However, is it any wonder that there are so many girls as young as 13 or 14-years-old who are getting knocked-up because ads like this say its OK?!
I would like to see a continuation of the topic