Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Two More Cents on Dove

I call retouching on dove.

I’m fascinated by the continued coverage of the most recent video in the Dove Real Beauty Campaign arsenal. Though much of the coverage has been critical, its very discussion shows how effective the campaign has been—and how ready women are for a new conversation about beauty, one that doesn’t rest on the belief that we don’t like the way we look.

I’ve heard from several readers who have pointed out that whatever quibblings I might have with the Dove campaign, the fact is that it’s better for women than traditional advertising, specifically the type that relies on sexist tropes. I agree: At the end of the day, if I had to choose between Dove’s “BFF marketing” style and the rest of ’em, I’d choose Dove. (And I’ll readily point out that the sketch artist ad “worked” on me: I totally got teary at the big reveal.) But as Cassie points out, we’re not limited to either/or options here, and as cynical as I might be about advertising, I'd feel more cynical if I just threw up my hands and said, Well, this is the best we can do, so I'll take it.

More to the point: I’m not so sure that the roots of the Dove campaign are all that different from conventional ads, though the feeling each creates is quite different. The Dove campaign exploits women’s beauty-related self-esteem for its own purposes. In other words, it’s doing exactly the same thing as the ads that tell women they aren’t good enough as-is. The means are different, of course, but the tool of leverage—and, of course, the end goal of selling products—is the same: Without a self-esteem crisis, neither type of ad would work. It’s this bare fact—that without women disliking their looks, Dove would lose its ace in the hole—that should make us suspect of the premise. Do women feel bad about their looks? Yes! Sometimes. Sometimes.

The feminist argument against beauty advertising often hinges upon a neat equation: Companies need to make women feel bad about the way they look, so that they can then supply the fix—lipstick, hair conditioner, whatever. Contrast this with what people within the beauty industry (like the beauty editor I interviewed here) say: The beauty industry has a stake in making women feel good about themselves, by giving us tools of independent self-care and the ability to enhance our natural gifts. At first glance these two arguments seem pitted against one another, but in fact they exist in symbiosis. The beauty industry has a stake in keeping women in the space between desperate unhappiness with our looks and bulletproof self-esteem. A consumer who simultaneously believes that she is beautiful and not-beautiful makes for a better consumer. And in fact it’s simple for advertisers to leverage our chronic cognitive dissonance because that’s closer to the actual experience of beauty than some neat yes/no box. If there was no part of us that didn’t secretly believe we just might be beautiful, the Dove ad would have no effect. It’s not only the possibility but the permission of the Dove ad that makes it so powerful.

Yes, there’s an enormous problem with appearance-related self-esteem among women (and men). Yes, we need to continue to address this concern on a sociological level. Yes, it is incredibly painful for any of us in those moments of exquisitely vulnerable self-loathing. Yes to all that. And yet: Yes, most of us have looked in the mirror at some point and liked what we’ve seen. Yes, we look forward to wearing certain outfits because we know we look fantastic in them. Yes, we now snap so many self-portraits that we had to invent the word selfie to describe the phenomenon. Yes to all the natural human joy and pride and immodesty and pleasure we take in our looks. To deny that side of the beauty question is to deny our lived experience. To deny that side of the beauty question is to take shame in those moments of pride, to deny ourselves lest we be seen as thinking we’re “all that.” To deny that side of the beauty question is to publicly deny other women the same right we privately give ourselves. We don’t give ourselves that right all the time, no. But we don’t need to.

I’d be hesitant to put this thought out there, that maybe we like the way we look at the same time we don’t like the way we look—because really what I’m saying is that this is true for me, and my my, isn’t someone arrogant? But when I look at the numbers—the numbers we don’t hear about all the time in clucking tones—I see that my experience of beauty duality isn’t mine alone. Check out the numbers that writer and sociology PhD candidate Kjerstin Gruys points out: According to another study, 58% of women are satisfied with their appearance. 65% of women consider themselves “above average” in appearance. Or, hell, look at Dove’s own numbers from their 2004 research for the launch of the Real Beauty campaign: While only 4% of the Dove survey respondents copped to considering themselves “beautiful,” 55% of them were satisfied with their body shape and size. One of these numbers works in the narrative Dove is creating with the Real Beauty campaign. And one of them doesn’t.

Add to that the other structural concerns Virginia Postrel points out about the Dove video: We only see the results of seven women; 20 women participated in the initial experiment. (Did some of those women’s sketches fall out of line with the desired result?) The sketch artist—i.e. the person whose work the entire ad centers around—knew what the experiment while doing his sketches. There was no opportunity for women to correct the sketch as would happen if the goal actually were accuracy; how would someone know whether what she called her “long nose” differed wildly from the artist’s rendering of it?

And there’s that word beautiful, which, according to Dove research, only 4% of women describe themselves as being. What Dove doesn't tell you is how they came up with that number: They asked survey respondents to choose one word to describe themselves from a list of 10 words. Here’s a list of the words respondents were given to choose from (on page 10): natural, average, attractive, feminine, good-looking, cute, pretty, beautiful, sophisticated, sexy, stunning, and gorgeous. Does me choosing, say, sexy, or pretty, or natural or attractive signal a self-esteem problem? Hell, even choosing average doesn’t mean we're suffering—if you’re approaching the question from a statistical standpoint instead of an interpretive one (and some respondents undoubtedly would), by definition most of us would indeed be average. (Speaking of averages: When respondents were asked to place themselves on a “bell curve” of beauty, 13% of respondents said they thought of themselves as somewhat less or much less beautiful than other women. And 16% of respondents said they thought of themselves as somewhat more or much more beautiful than other women.)

But back to why I bothered to revisit the campaign in the first place: I think some of us have had enough. Just as Dove created the campaign in response to the fact that women had had enough of traditional advertising that asked us to feel lesser-than, it’s clear from the overwhelming response to the ad that while we’ve still had enough of that type of ad, we’re also becoming wary of the ads that use those feelings as leverage. And frankly, I’m thrilled to see such a variety of responses to the campaign. To me, it signals a desire to shed the therapeutic narrative of beauty. The question is: What narrative will we design in its place?


  1. I've been reading for a while by way of already pretty. This is just so smart and nuanced. I've come late to fashion, style and "frivolity" (42). One thing that's helped has been getting mature and less apologetic as a feminist and a human being. But for sure another thing that has helped is this and other feminist blogs. I so appreciate that you (and others) are facilitating sophisticated conversations about this shit - and doing it in a way that is humane and kind. It gives me hope for my sons and daughter. Thank you.

    1. This is a truly humbling comment--thank you. I'm pleased to be able to host a conversation--and thrilled that so many people want to be in on these types of conversations.

  2. That survey question actually makes me quite angry! (my day job as a social researcher coming through I think)

    1. Ha! I had been wondering how this would hold up critically through that lens. The study was done by good researchers (among them Nancy Etcoff, who wrote "Survival of the Prettiest") but the fact remains that it was paid for by Dove, which the study designers knew. How could there not be some implicit bias?

  3. So glad to see some in depth criticism of this ad. You are so right on this:

    Just as Dove created the campaign in response to the fact that women had had enough of traditional advertising that asked us to feel lesser-than, it’s clear from the overwhelming response to the ad that while we’ve still had enough of that type of ad, we’re also becoming wary of the ads that use those feelings as leverage.

    I think it's great that more people are becoming aware of how our feelings and emotions are leveraged when being advertised to.

    Personally, when I saw the ad, I did a HUGE eye roll.

  4. 10 Amazing Facts About Nike Court Tour Suede Mens Shoes Mid Cut Dinosaurs

    1. Dinosaurs first appeared during the Triassic period (248 to 213 million years ago), and were the dominant land animals through the entire Jurassic period, and to Nike Air Jordan Mens the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago).

    2. We know about dinosaurs because fossils have been found. The fossils, which are generally found in sedimentary rocks, including fossilized body parts (bones, teeth, skin, claws, etc.), as well as trace fossils ("ichnofossils") which show how the animals lived, which include footprints, burrows, nests, toothmarks, dung, etc.

    3. The earth's continents slowly move through a process known as "plate tectonics". When dinosaurs first appeared during the Triassic period, all the earth's continents were Nike Air Presto High joined together in one super continent known as "Pangea".

    4. All the familiar types of dinosaurs, died off at the end of the Nike Air Yeezy Cretaceous period. There are Nike Air Jordan Mens many different theories why this may have happened, but today the most popular theory is that an asteriod hit the earth, blocking out the sunlight Womens Air Jordan 6 so that there was not enough food available. Evidence for this theory is a layer of iridium, which is believed to have come from the asteroid, has been found around the world, and a possible impact site found in southern Mexico.

    5. The smallest known dinosaur is Compsognathus, which lived in Europe during the late Jurassic, and was about the size of a chicken. Compsognathus is believed to Air Jordan Mens Sandals Shoes have eaten insects, lizards and other small animals.

    6. There are quite a few candidates for the largest dinosaur, as there are Designer Shoes several types of dinosaur that were over 100 feet (30 metres) long. The largest was certainly some kind of sauropod (a four legged plant eating dinosaur with a long neck) that lived during the late Jurassic or early Cretaceous period.

    7. The word "dinosaur" was coined by Sir Richard Owen, who also founded the Air Jordan PRO Classic Nike Dunk Mid Mens Shoes Natural History Museum in London, England. "Dinosaur" means terrible lizard, and is based on the Greek words "deinos" (terrible) and "sauros" (lizard).

    8. People have been finding dinosaur fossils for hundreds of years, but didn't know what they were until quite recently. The first time that a dinosaur was scientifically described was in 1824, by William Buckland.

    9. At the same time that dinosaurs dominated the land, there were many aquatic reptiles that dominated the seas, although these were not dinosaurs. These aquatic reptiles included plesiosaurs, nothosaurs, mosasaurs and ichythosaurs.

    10. Although birds seem to have evolved from dinosaurs, no non avian flying dinosaurs are known. However, at the time of dinosaurs there were many flying reptiles, known as pterosaurs.

  5. Obama's campaign platform quasi Buffett rule was rejected by the Senate

    China news agency, Washington, April 16 - US President Barack Obama pushing for the richest Americans income tax rate of 30% of the 'Buffett tax' on the 16th was the Senate Otherwise, the two parties Nike Free Run Roshe Run Homme for this is considered Obama 'quasi election program 'attitude of the bill can be described as' entirely different 'day of the vote result was 51 votes in favor, 45 votes against, Obama's Democratic Party failed to get the 100 votes in the Senate, Nike Site Officiel 60 votes, the bill pass through Burberry Sunglasses the Nike Air Max 2011 Homme defeat. The vote is almost equivalent to the political Nike Air Max 97 Femme line of a battle between the two parties, the two sides each have a member Members except outside the 'defection' all the rest to support the position of the Republican Party Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Obama's day address him as 'a liar 'He said:' wasted so much time in the Democratic Party has also admitted that we can not solve the larger problem of political sleight of Burberry Trench Coats hand, this shows that the president of misleading the people more interested in the people than the guide. '

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats countered that the wealthiest Americans are enjoying the lowest tax rates in modern history. 'This unfair Nike Free Run 4.0 Homme system has made the most wealthy Burberry Womens Wear minority and the gap between the other person becomes a gulf.'

    Democrats also said they would continue to push Congress to pass the new tax rules for the bill is named after Warren Buffett, Buffett said he paid effective tax rate is lower than his secretary. The rules require that an adjusted gross income of more than one million US dollars of the rich pay at least 30% of income tax to an authoritative data show that about 65% of US income tax rate of over one million persons less than the annual income of less than $ 100,000 in the middle income groups, the median rate of the White House announced on the 13th of the Obamas revenue last year nearly $ 790,000, they paid approximately $ 160,000 in income tax, due to its income of less than $ 1 million, so Buffett rule is not affected. But his presidential campaign rival Mitt Romney will be affected, Romney 2011 total revenue estimated at $ 20.9 million, an Burberry Wallets effective tax rate of 15.4% this year, Obama has been advocating the 'Buffett tax', and this As an important program of its re-election. Despite the failure of the checkpoints, but he could not no gain. Since April 17 is the deadline for filing tax returns for millions of Americans, Democrats choose this before the vote, apparently trying to focus again towards 'fair' More importantly, recent polls show a majority of Americans support increase the tax the rich. Gallup poll released Designer Burberry Outlet on the 13th showed that 60 percent of Americans support Buffett rule, only 37% opposed. Finish

  6. The author could present the topic in new dimensions of viewpoints. It was a great reading experience. Thanks for sharing this brilliant post!