"Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need." – Will Rogers

It is very difficult to take down a marketing company when they are trying to do something that is admirable and undeniably good with their advertising. The Campaign for Real Beauty is an admirable idea, but it has been a disaster for Dove because it has diluted a brand positioning that was already wobbling under the weight of questionable line extensions.
The Campaign for Real Beauty Ads, for soap, shampoo and now Dove Nourishing Lotion have taken this error a step further. In these spots, Dove is trying to substitute the brand positioning of the campaign (women come in all shape and sizes and that is great) for the brand positioning of Dove. And Dove is trying to morph into a generic empowerment message. But it just doesn’t fit. The message is that you need to add something that you don’t have to make you whole. And that means you aren’t whole already.


While I understand Doves’ initial reaction to the seeming hypocrisy of the campaign, I don’t think it’s entirely without good cause. Yes, Dove is still a brand and yes, it relies on an inadequacy to sell its products, and its main aim in advertising IS to sell. On the other hand, low-self esteem and the quest for self-improvement are not entirely linked. I think there’s a difference between wanting to appear healthy (which feeling and looking younger is a major part of) and looking a specific ‘right’ way.

I also admit the debate about "real" women is highly questionable. On a wider scale, although it aims to comfort women pressured to conform to extreme practices such as surgery and diets, it still ultimately focuses on creating an ideal which women are then either included in or excluded from. In other words, is a woman less of a woman because she has small breasts? If she chooses to get breast implants, does she become more of a woman by adopting a "traditional" figure or less of a woman by altering her natural female figure?