It was a chance to showcase some of the Collider12 startups to brand and marketing managers to engage them and potentially take the relationship further. We will be getting more feedback from Unilever next week, and a video from the day will also be released, so stay tuned for more information.

Things usually get a bit sticky when you mix morals with advertising.
In a world where everyone is chasing those big ol’ dollar bills,
how can we expect to believe that companies really want to improve peoples’ lives beyond purchase point?

I much prefer that this kind of a message is out there, as opposed to some of the stinky shit that is in the media these days.
Let’s keep in mind though that Dove is owned by Unilever,
who also owns Axe.
You know Axe–the horrendous smelling men’s grooming products
aimed at teenage boys.
Unlike Dove’s campaigns, Axe ads are the worst commercials out there as far as helping promote healthy ways of thinking of women.

While I do think it’s good for media to nod at raising your self-esteem,
I do wish it weren’t all about looks. How boring is that?
These days anyone can be “pretty.”
…from surgeries, to tanning beds, to capped teeth, to push up bras…
I’m not really all that impressed by beauty.

Why not show me someone I can look up to? Someone I can learn from.
Someone who gets off their ass,
not frozen by their fears of being the ugly duckling,
but driven by passion and interests outside of themselves.

So here it is. This is why I love my job.
Check out this project I’ve been working on for the last year and a half.
It’s all about women who get shit done, the women we need to celebrate.
CRAFTED IN CARHARTT

The makers of Dove soap are getting a lot of attention, and deservedly so, for the latest entry in their “Real Beauty” ad campaign that tries to get women to think better of their bodies and then buy Dove to keep those bodies clean.

The truth is that most women don’t look like supermodels. And that is OK, despite what American marketers do to convince women that they need to soften, harden, tone, buff, freshen, nip, tuck, deodorize or otherwise disguise their bodies beyond all recognition. It’s a scam that too many women have bought into, so good for Dove for saying that it’s good to look normal. (Never mind that Unilever, maker of Dove, also makes the men’s cologne Axe, which recently used disembodied breasts to sell that product. But I digress.)

The latest ads have a sketch artist render two drawings of the same women. One is based on the women’s descriptions of themselves and the other is based on other people’s descriptions of the women. Of course, the sketches based on the self-descriptions are less attractive than those based on others’ descriptions, so… you get the point.

This made me think that the principle at work in the ads is the same at work inside all of our heads — men as well as women. We don’t see ourselves as others see us. Most of the time, we see ourselves less positively than others see us. But sometimes, our self-images are way better than reality. Both cases are true for me, which leads to this week’s Friday 5. I have assembled images about myself that exist in my head and images that represent how I’m sure others see me to illustrate the point:

1.  How I see myself as a dad:

How others see me as a dad:

2.  How I see myself as a cook:

How others see me as a cook:

3.  How I see myself on a date:

How I’m pretty sure I look to my girlfriend on a date:

4. How I like to think of myself as a runner:

How others see me running:

5. How I see myself as a singer:

How I really sing:

Let’s get two things perfectly fucking clear, guys: I liked the commercial and I’m not an oblivious idiot who thinks Dove is trying to change the world. The message is intended to sell Dove products. Dove’s beauty and care products, for that matter. Also, Dove is owned by Unilever. And Unilever is a massive corporation that owns a ridiculous amount of brands that make products consumed by everyone everywhere whether they like it, or are aware of it, or not (yikes). It’s also a corporation whose name is attached to not-so-women-friendly advertising. Like the OMO commercials that tell society women’s main concern in life should be washing their kid’s clothes to an eye-piercing shade of white, or that AXE men’s deodorant will make women wild or something (I never quite understood those, but the gist of it is that they are super-duper degrading to everyone involved. Does anyone remember the chocolate man? Gross on so many levels!). So yes. The ‘critics’ are absolutely right, Dove is probably an asshole. But guys, can we try a little social experiment ourselves? One whereby we remain skeptical, but are also able to celebrate the small victories?

The world isn’t going to change in a day. Women of color, heavier women, shorter women, different-abled women, women who look more like the drawing on the left… None of these women are really the heroines of the storyboard for this commercial and that totally sucks. Like big time. I feel that way too. But how about the fact that the protagonists of this ad who actually manage to conform to beauty ideals to a great extent (skinny, white, whatever) still have such a critical view of themselves? Is that not remarkable? Is that not worth our time? Like fuck you, white blondie, you have it too good for us “real” women to relate? Or screw you young white heterosexual lady with a headless boyfriend in the next shot, you’re too straight to know how LGBTQ women feel? Is that not a little bit like… the opposite of what we want?

Our struggles are ALL different but it’s exactly this messy and beautiful kaleidoscope of issues and identities that makes the feminist cause an inclusive one! Hooray for diversity. Right? And that includes not shitting on other women for being somewhat closer to some norm! Because guess what we learned from this ad guys? We all share this awful rigidity with which we learned to look at ourselves as women because, guess fucking what? In our fucked up societies, we only get shown images of women who look a certain way! So I say that any tiny little divergence from that norm, however small, and however minute and manipulative even, is actually a little victory! A tiny, little, at times barely visible transgression, if you will.

And can I just say that in reality I am incredibly excited that so many people are on board with thinking critically about what the media is presenting us with? Like seriously, the very fact that we’re seeing people get together to criticize the oppressor as opposed to the oppressed is really very encouraging and maybe I shouldn’t even be complaining. And yet I am because even though I recognize the selective and opportunistic practices with which the message is being conveyed, it still sends out a solid message about how women can beat themselves up about their looks unnecessarily. Say what you want about the stranger’s gaze as a mode of self-validation, but I think at the end of the day our issues with self-confidence are much more about fears of not being accepted or seen for who we are beyond our looks than they are about us genuinely giving a shit about having imperfect skin or whatever.

Look, marketing and publicity are moral gray areas – usually perhaps a very dark gray leaning on immorality, sure. But that’s because morality is not the goal. Using cultural symbols and cues that consumers can read and understand (and this usually does mean stereotyping and the use of conventions about beauty and a strong reference to heteronormativity) to sell products is what marketing does. And I’m not defending that at all. But it’s the name of the game and so of course it will upset people when companies pretend that they are a moral force. Like as if Unilever gives two shits about women feeling that their crow’s feet are destroying their lives, so long as they buy Dove’s skillfully named “Pro-age” cream. But I prefer to look at this as a glass-half-full type situation.

We, women of the planet who are not models often do feel excluded from, and intimidated by, advertising. All that Dove is doing is nudging towards including us. Or some of us. Or someone who kind of looks more like they could sit down and have a coffee with us. Maybe even a piece of cake. And I say that’s a fucking fair enough strategy. We’re consumers and very profitable ones at that. So if Dove wants to engage us by sending positive as opposed to negative messages, is that not kind of an improvement on your average “you’re awful, but use this product and no one will know that you’re ugly/fat/smelly/have your period which is totally gross” that we get faced with from your run-of-the-mill advertising campaigns?

Ladies, when it comes to advertising I say we should count our blessings! Especially regarding personal care products. Because let’s face it: it’s not like Dove’s competitors aren’t using skinny, white and young women to sell their products too. So at least their message is kinder. (And although they are practically mutes, I did see at least one Black and one Asian woman in the commercial.)

Now for a little confessionality: I am probably not the vainest person in the world. Nor am I the most insecure. But I’m not going to sit here and say I’m not affected by looks because that would be a lie. Yes, I can (as in, am able to) feel beautiful at times. But the variables that must be perfectly aligned for me to feel beautiful really make up a complex equation. I have suffered from redness on my face since I was 15. The past week, my skin issue has left my face feeling quite sensitive. As I result, I decided to try something I barely ever do: live life without any make up for a while. Give the good ol’ face a rest for once. And I am ashamed to admit it, but closing the front door of my house without wanting to turn around to mask those patches of redness for the last three days has been an exercise of determination.

And no, that’s not the most important thing about me. And of course this doesn’t paralyze me from doing what I want in life because I of all people fucking well know that looks are not everything. I’m practically embarrassed to admit that they’re even anything.

Yet if for some reason I was asked to describe myself on the first day I walked among other humans without my usual foundation routine this week, like the women on the video did, I probably would have described something that looks a lot like the Loch Ness monster: i.e. an imaginary and hideous creature. So forgive me for defending an ad by a soulless corporation, but on this particular occasion I personally really responded to its message. And it made me feel like I should be a little less cynical when those close to me tell me I don’t need all the make-up because maybe, just maybe, it’s all in my head too.

And, let’s face it, how often can we say that an ad campaign for a cosmetics brand made us feel better about ourselves?

The internet was abuzz yesterday with the release of Dove’s new “Everyone is Beautiful” campaign, featuring a sketch artist tasked with drawing unseen (to him) women as they describe themselves, and again as described by other people. The women then got to see the two images, and realized they are far more critical of their appearance than others are – people see you differently than you see yourself and we should all celebrate our uniqueness and beauty and butterfly rainbow kittens for us all.

Nice sentiment. Too bad it’s a calculated load of shit.

When I watched the ad – with an admittedly already-critical eye – I couldn’t help but notice several things:

• Hey, look at all those conventionally attractive people!
• Hey, look at all those conventionally attractive white people!
• “I have a round face” was stated as a negative
• “She had a nice thin <whatever>” was a compliment .. twice
• That sad, plinky music and grey lighting is doing a lot to set the mood – I can’t help but wonder how this would feel with a polka or 70′s porn music

Turns out I’m far from the only one having these thoughts: something fishy is afoot in their pretty, pretty paradise. It’s a nice idea, I guess, and sketch artists are crazy awesome, but the execution is pretty damn shallow. Also, everything else that’s wrong with the situation.

I posted this on Facebook this morning, and I’m just copying it here because I’m lazy and also angry about PAX tickets (I can’t get any):

As noble as the “we’re all beautiful!” campaign is, we have to keep several things in mind:

1. We’re being purposefully manipulated by a marketing team to sell PRODUCTS. Tell me, do you really spend a lot of time worrying how your armpit skin looks? Dove sells a product that’ll “fix” it, along with a series of commercials designed to make you think people are judging you on the appearance of your pits.
2. In eastern countries, where brown skin is the norm, Dove sells “Whitening Cream” because “white skin is beautiful”. There is so much fucking wrong with this that I can’t even.
3. The parent company that sells Dove also sells Axe. That’s right: one team makes millions telling you you’re all beautiful; another makes millions selling you as objects who exist solely to arouse odiferous men.

So yeah, as much as I too could use the occasional reminder that I’m not as ugly as I think I am, I don’t buy it when it comes from Dove.

Even if Dove is trying to uplift everyone’s self-esteem, even if it works and no one ever feels bad about themselves again, even if just one girl realizes she is beautiful no matter what they say (words can’t bring her down), you HAVE to remember that Dove is a manufacturer of products, owned by a company that exists to SELL THINGS. At the end of the day, their one job isn’t to make us feel good – it’s to profit. Profit off your fears and insecurities. Profit off telling us we’re all beautiful with one hand, while telling women with dark skin to lighten it in another, and using women as sex dolls to sell toxic sprays in a third (they have many arms).

Do you really want your feels to be manipulated by a company that thinks your armpit skin could use some work?

I don’t.

Get bent, Unilever.

On Monday, Dove released their latest video from their Real Beauty campaign and it has people talking. Critics argue that this is just a cheap marketing strategy that creates a warm fuzzy feelings associated with the brand to influence your purchasing decisions. There are also speculations regarding the parent company, Unilever, who also makes Axe products that portray quite a different message to women in their campaigns.
Fans of the campaign don’t care whether it is a marketing strategy, they care about the message. Regardless of the intentions behind it, this message has made women feel good about themselves and for that they thank Dove.

In the ad, a forensic artist sketches women he cannot see as they describe themselves to him and then again, when described by a stranger. The sketch generated by the stranger always proved to be the more accurate, and arguably happier, depiction. It highlights that women are their own worst critics and the emotional effects of distorted self-perception.

The concept is really fantastic. I really understand the need for beauty products to build a positive relationship with their consumers by encouraging them to develop healthy relationships with themselves first. The advertising and fashion industry have wreaked havoc on women’s self esteem and Dove aims to be the soothing bandaid, out to repair what others have damaged. Unfortunately for Dove, I am not fooled.

Dove is owned by Unilever. Unilever is certainly responsible for generating advertising that lends itself to making women feel inadequate and in need of a multitude of physical improvements (skin whitening lotion, cellulite treatment or anti-ageing cream anyone?). Lynx, which operates on objectifying barely-clothed models, is the main culprit and contradiction to their message. Unilever is both the attack and defence in this war, and at the end of the day, they need each other to sell product.

I can understand that Unilever is just the parent company, and that different brands communicate to different target audiences. But to me, knowing that , it undermines the authenticity of their message. Campaigns don’t exist in isolation, and the discrepancy between these two brands have and will be noticed.

By voting against this important element in both British Government and EU climate policy, Tory MEPs put their fanatical euro-scepticism ahead of British jobs and our environment. All three Conservative MEPs for London, Marina Yannakoudakis, Charles Tannock and Syed Kamall, voted with the climate change sceptics against the UK’s best interests. Amazingly, Tory MEPs ignored the strong views expressed by their own Ministers in London.

It is now confirmed that Members of the European Parliament voted 334-315 against the measure.  After the vote, the EU carbon price immediately fell 44 percent to a new record low of 2.63 euros a tonne.

My colleague Linda McAvan who leads for the Socialist and Democrat Group on climate change described the vote in the European Parliament as ”a catastrophe for the environment,” adding “”The UK carbon floor price for the power sector came into force at the beginning of this month, so UK electricity providers are currently paying an extra £4.94 per tonne of carbon they emit. This is more than double the current ETS price for carbon, and it’s set to rise to five times the projected ETS price by 2015.”

 Even as former Tory Ministers who worked closely with Mrs Thatcher said publicly that she was the first head of government to recognise the science of climate change and would have warmly welcomed the free market solution offered by the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS), Tory MEPs blithely voted not to support the pan-European solution. It’s yet another case of the coalition setting themselves up as the ‘greenest government ever’ while their MEPs in Brussels vote against environmental measures.

Not only have the Tories snubbed their own leader, but they’ve also dismissed the views of a huge range of experts and businesses who believed this change would have been good for the environment, the consumer and industry.  Those who supported the proposal included the CBI, Shell, Philips, Tesco, Unilever, Kingfisher, Johnson & Johnson, SSE, E.ON, UKEnergy, UK Green Building Council and the UK Corporate Leaders Group.

Sadly, their efforts fell on deaf ears as the Tory MEPs sided unscientific climate change deniers in the face of reasonable arguments from all sides.

According to Dove, women are their own worst beauty critics. Only 4% of women around the world consider themselves beautiful (A fact highlighted in their previous Dove Ad Makeover Campaign too). Dove was committed to creating a world where beauty is a source of confidence, not anxiety. This time they decided to conduct a compelling social experiment that explores how women view their own beauty in contrast to what others see. Dove recruited seven women of different ages and backgrounds and had FBI-trained forensic artist Gil Zamora create composite sketches of them based on descriptions of their own facial features. He asks them to describe in detail the structure of their faces, their chins, their foreheads and proceeds to sketch their portrait as described by each individual woman.

In the video shown below, produced for the campaign, you can hear the women use phrases like “my mom told me I had a big jaw,” “I kind of have a fat, rounder face,” “I’d say I have a pretty big forehead.” Earlier in the day, the women had been asked to spend time with strangers, though neither party was told why. These strangers were later brought one by one into a room with Zamora and asked to describe the women who had been sketched earlier. The two resulting drawings of each woman were then hung side-by-side — and the contrast is pretty stark. The tagline of the campaign is: “You are more beautiful than you think.”

It’s worth noting that Dove is owned by Unilever – the same company that owns Axe, king of misogynistic ads that use headless breasts and ”flirty girls” to hawk its products. However, despite the obvious commercial intentions behind this campaign, the message rings true and is a refreshing departure from the many female-targeted ads that try to shame women into buying things.

Related articles

• Dove ‘Sketches’ Examines Women’s Perception of Themselves (adrants.com)
• Dove’s “Real Beauty” Campaign Analysis (karenwong96.wordpress.com)
• Sketch Artist Experiment Proves Women Are More Beautiful Than They Think (buzzfeed.com)

GORDY’S COUNTY MARKET WEEKLY AD MATCH-UP

April 13 – April 19^th

GORDY’S COUNTY MARKET COUPONS – w/additional food purchase, coupon and limit

$5.98 Gold ‘n Plump Meal Deal – includes (1) Village Hearth Dinner Rolls 12 ct. and 1.25 liter of Coke product wyb (1) Gold ‘n Plump Rotisserie Chicken – limit 1

$0.78 Fresh Express Garden Salad 12 oz. – limit 1

$1.98 Del Monte Gold Pineapple – limit 1

$0.68 Essential Everyday Facial Tissue 86 ct. – limit 2

$3.98 Bar’s Smoked or Polish Sausage 2.5 lb. – limit 2

$1.98 Klement’s Breakfast Sausage Links 12 oz. – limit 2

$1.88 Healthy Choice Entrees 8-9.*9 oz. assorted varieties – limit 10

2/$4 Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup 24 oz.

• $1/2 Hershey’s Syrup bottles w/in-ad mfg. coupon 18-24 oz.
• Final: 2/$3 or 1.50 each

2/$6 Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bars 6 pack

• $1/2 Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bars 6 pk. w/in-ad mfg. coupon
• Final: 2/$5 or 2.50 each

$2.88 Gordon Ray’s Ring Bologna 14 oz. – limit 2

$2.98 Donna Mae’s Coffee Cakes 14 oz. – limit 1

$1.88 Sunbelt Granola Bars 8-12 oz. – limit 3

• .55/1 Sunbelt Bakery Family Pack 8-10 ct. 3/11/13 on their Facebook site www.Facebook.com/Sunbelt
• Final: 1.33

$4.98 Cameron Coffee 10-12 oz. exc. Organic – limit 2

$5.98 Maxwell House 29.3-30.6 oz. regular, masterblend, or lite – limit 1

FREE Kraft Philadelphia Cream Cheese 8 oz. wyb Maxwell House Coffee – limit 1

2/$2.98 Strawberry Twizzlers 16 oz. pack

• $1/2 Twizzlers wyb 2 w/in-ad mfg. coupon
• Final: $1.98/2 or .99 each

$0.38 Yoplait Lights or Thick’n Creamy Yogurt 6 oz. – limit 10

• .40/6 Yoplait Yogurt Cups , void in LA, NJ, ND, NV, & TN 4/2/13 www.coupons.com
• .40/6 Yoplait Yogurt Cups, original, light, thick & creamy, Lactose free or whips 4/4/13 www.quericavida.com
• .50/8 Yoplait Cups 3/24/13 SS insert
• .40/6 Yoplait Cups 3/24/13 SS insert
• .50/8 Yoplait Cups 2/24/13 SS insert
• Final: as low as 1.88/6 or .31 each

$0.98 Bakery Vienna Bread 16 oz. – limit 1

$2.48 Dean’s Ice Cream Scrounds 48 oz. assorted varieties – limit 2

$1.98 Swanson Hungry-Man Dinners 13.1-17 oz. – limit 5

$0.48 Essential Everyday Biscuits 7.5 oz. – limit 5

Buy 10 Unilever items – Save $5.00 (mix or match) w/in-ad coupon [MUST BUY 10]

$1.68 Ragu Pasta Sauce 16-24 oz.

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• Final: $1.18

$1.68 Western or Wish Bone Dressing 16 oz.

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• Final: $1.18

$2.48 Lipton Iced Tea 10 ct. bags

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• Final: $1.98

$4.48 Lipton Iced Tea 20 qt.

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• Final: $3.98

$6.98 Dove Soap or Body Wash

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• $2/1 Dove Body Wash  18 oz.+ exc. men’s care 3/24/13 RP insert
• $1/1 Dove Men+Care, body wash 13.5 oz.+ or 6 pk. bars  3/24/13 RP insert
• $1/1 Dove Body Wash 12 oz.+ exc. men’s+care 3/24/13 RP insert
• .75/1 Dove Bar 6 pk. exc. men’s care 3/24/13 RP insert
• Final: as low as $4.48

$3.48 Country Crock Margarine

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• Final: $2.98

$3.48 Hellmann’s Mayo or Real Whipped 30 oz.

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• Final: $2.98

$3.48 Breyer’s Ice Cream 48 oz.

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• Final: $2.98

$3.48 Klondike or Magnum Ice Cream Bars 3-6 ct.

• Less .50 w/in-ad coupon
• Final: $2.98

$3.88 Gold ‘N Plump Sale

Whole Chickens 56 oz.

Family Pack Chicken Thighs or Drumsticks 56 oz.

Chicken Breast Fillets 15 oz.

Chicken Breast Tenders 14 oz.

Chicken Stir Fry Pieces 14 oz.

• $1/1 Gold N Plump Chicken 3/9/13 www.goldnplump.com, rolling Q
• Final: 2.88

*******************************************

$1.88 Dole snow-white Cauliflower

$0.68 Powerade Sports Drink 32 oz. bottles

2/$5 General Mills Cereals (Cheerios 14 oz. Reese’s Puffs 13 oz. Lucky Charms 11.5 oz. or Wheaties 10.9 oz.) – save up to 2.98 on 2

• $1/2 Cheerios & others 4/3/13 www.coupons.com
• $1/2 Wheaties & others  4/3/13 www.coupons.com
• .50/1 Cheerios yellow box  4/2/13 www.upromise.com
• .60/1  Original Cheerios, in yellow box  4/6/13 www.BettyCrocker.com
• $1/2 General Mills Cereals  3/24/13  SS insert
• Final: as low as 3.80/2 or 1.90 each

$0.98 Betty Crocker Hamburger, Tuna or Chicken Helper 5-9 oz. – save 1.11

• .75/3 Hamburger, Tuna, or Chicken Helper 4/4/13 www.quericavida.com
• Final: 2.19/3 or .73 each

$9.98 Purina Dog Chow 20 lb.

• $3/1 Purina Dog Chow  3/17/13 RP insert
• $2/1 Purina Dog Chow 3/17/13 RP insert
• $2/1 Purina Dog Chow 1/27/13 RP insert
• Final:  6.98

4/$5.00 Totino’s Pizza Rolls 7.5 oz. (Pepperoni, Cheese, or Combo) – save 2.16 on 4

• .75/3 Totino’s Pizza Rolls  1/27/13 SS insert
• .35/1 Totino’s Pizza rolls 1/27/13 SS insert
• Final: as low as 3.90/4 or .98 each

5/$10 Orv’s Pizza 12” assorted varieties – save 16.95 on 5

$1.98 Pillsbury Toaster Strudels 11.5 oz. select varieties

• .50/2 Pillsbury Toaster Strudel 2/3/13 SS insert
• Final: 3.46/2 or 1.73 each

$3.48 Hormel Black Label Bacon 12-16 oz.

$10 for 10 sale

Glaceau Vitamin Water or New Fruit Water 20 oz. Lipton Pure Leaf, Sobe Life Water or Amp Energy Drink 16-20 oz.

$1.28 Swiss Premium Sweetened Iced Tea gallon

$0.88 Land O Lakes Half & Half 16 oz.

• .55/1 Half & Half product 3/10/13 SS insert
• Final: .33

$1.68 Land O Lakes Whipping Cream 16 oz.

For more sales go to www.gordyscountymarket.com

Most recently they’ve come out with the “Real Beauty Sketches” video.

This video is touching. It warmed my pregnant heart to watch women see themselves through the eyes of someone else. It got me right in the feels, I even teared up a little bit, although some of that might be my pregnant hormones. I cry fairly easy these days. I’ve seen this video reposted over and over on all the social media I partake in, and I know it’s being posted on all the social media I don’t use too. I’m super glad women get that little reminder that we are more than what we see ourselves as.

Then I remembered that Dove is the same company as Axe, and that Unilever cares zero percent about women, and one hundred percent about sales. Unilever has brilliant marketing people who understand that when you touch a woman in her feelings, she will want to buy your product because you made her feel good, regardless of the quality of your product. This is the same company brought aerosol body spray back into a dying market place, in the form of Axe, and then created a whole marketplace that brings in billions each year. Unilever has brilliant marketers, and there is no arguing that.

What Unilever doesn’t give a shit about is women and their self worth. Unilever has referred to women as skanks (for not being able to resist a man wearing Axe no doubt) and implied that the first thing men notice about women is our boobs,

I’m not mad. I understand advertising, and I think that Unilever does it extremely well. They are brilliant at what they do, and it’s lead them to great success in their marketplace. I don’t think that advertisements should only use average women. Let’s just all remember that Dove isn’t an advocate for women just because it has touching commercials any more than McDonalds is an advocate for health because they sponsor the Olympics.

Like I said, we are all creative whether we want to believe it or not. Even in the marketing world creativity does not have a single definition because it depends on what perspective you look at. When looking at advertising creativity in marketing there are two perspectives: the suits and the poets. The suits consist of the businesses such as Unilever and their brand managers and creative means effective or in other words, it sells. The poets mainly consist of the creatives of the agencies hired by Unilever to come up with the actual creative or ad and to them creative is a means to an end that must be risky and unique. Another analogy used un marketing deals with two filing cabinets that seemingly have nothing to do with each other and those filing cabinets represent old ideas. By linking them together and connecting them in a way that creates value is where the creativity comes into play. Confused?

Take the new Windex Touch Up Cleaner. No one likes cleaning because of the time it takes. People are always trying to find ways to make cleaning easier and quicker. Ever try cleaning your kitchen and you reach under the cabinet for the spray bottle of cleaner and paper towels…spray, wipe, spray, wipe? Well the Windex honed in on this consumer insight and solved your problem by making this process just a little bit easier with only one motion. The two filing cabinets in this case are a cleaning solution and a sprayless, pump container similar to one used in most nail salons for nail posh remover. Both of these products have been around for years! It just took some consumer insight and someone creative to pull them together and create this new breakthrough product.

Is it moving? Undoubtedly. Is it effective marketing? Oh hot damn, yes. Is it true? Genuine? Authentic? Well, those are far trickier questions to answer.

This ad (and we can’t ever get away from the fact that this is an advertisement) has garnered a lot of positive feedback, at least among the people I know who’ve viewed it. The genius of the video is that it’s difficult to not like it: look at these lovely, diverse women being given a chance to see how beautiful they are! Look at them well up with tears of self-affirmation and joy!

This moment brought to you by Dove- owned by Unilever.

That is where my problem with the Campaign for Real Beauty® begins: ownership. Unilever is a massive home, food, and personal care conglomerate, with brands as diverse as Klondike, Popsicle, Ponds, Vaseline, and Vim. Most of their holdings are blue-chip home and health brands with a reputation for wholesome, if not always perfectly healthy (Ben&Jerry’s, I’m looking at you) products, including Dove. They also own another ubiquitous drugstore personal care brand: Axe.

Yes, THAT Axe. You might remember the smell lingering in your high school locker room, or emanating from a particularly robust specimen of the homo sapien oblivious species. My latin naming is rough, but you get the point. Axe makes money by positioning itself as a way for guys to get laid by hot chicks. And if you think that’s an overly simplistic description, this is from Unilever’s own website for the brand:

Getting the girl has never been easier, thanks to the Axe effect. As devoted users know, women can’t resist anyone wearing those great fragrances! Axe’s commitment to helping guys has led it to become the No. 1 male deodorant brand in Canada.

Ah, yes, “getting the girl,”which appears to be shorthand for “getting the girl to strip her bikini from her smokin’ hot bod on a public beach.” Show me that real beauty, bitches!

Despite what you might be thinking, I don’t necessarily distrust brands on sight, but I do think it’s important to question the ultimate source- and the bottom line- of any product and its attendant marketing campaign. Corporate social responsibility, or CRS as it’s more commonly being called, is not a myth. It does exist and has powerful, committed adherents. Companies like Mountain Equipment Co-op, who turn over a portion of their sales every year to 1% for the Planet, and Patagonia, who introduced their Common Threads program while actively discouraging their own customers from purchasing products that they don’t need, walk the walk. For these companies, such programs are more than marketing strategies: they are core principles at the heart of how they do business. CRS can be done well, and engaged with in a meaningful, productive, and profitable way.

I also don’t begrudge a company looking to make some money and maybe spread a little goodwill along the way. After all, I want to buy products that speak to my wants and fulfill my needs. I want to feel clean and beautiful, healthy and happy, and if my choice of moisturizer or soap gives me that feeling, fabulous. It is also refreshing to see something other than airbrushed, photoshopped models hawking cold cream. What I don’t and won’t buy is a brand claiming to promote images of “real beauty” while simultaneously promoting incredibly cliché images of female attractiveness. You cannot possibly hope to advocate inclusive body image to one audience while glorifying the exact opposite to your male audience, to decry impossible standards of beauty while perpetually reintroducing those same standards into the media landscape. To continue this cycle of uplift and depression is a tacit acknowledgement of the lack of good faith in which you’re negotiating with your customer.

In the end, the Dove commercial that closes with the plea to “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does” is absolutely right: talk to your daughter, your sister, your mom about what beauty is and how you want it to be represented. But also talk to your son, your brother, and your dad about what an inclusive, realistic standard of beauty, self-confidence, and health actually looks like. Exaggerated images of “beauty” will continue to exist so long as we, women and men alike, do not communicate with and support each other. If a picture is worth a thousand words, make sure those words don’t tell you what to do but speak to who you are.

 1. Hi Alex, thank you so much for taking the time to have this chat. To start off, please can you explain what you do on a daily basis as Digital Planning Manager for Unilever?

I partner our global brand development teams helping plan strategic marketing programs across digital channels. This includes selecting technology solutions, services and partners, as well as enabling the brands and categories to surface and share best practices.

2. What are your favourite websites or apps at the moment?

I’m a big fan of TheFancy.com, a website and app that brings together crowd-curated fashion, gadgets and places. Like Pinterest, it’s really visual and imagery-based, and I’m continually discovering weird and wonderful things that I want to buy, (but don’t necessarily need!). I also spend a lot of time using Flipboard on my iPad. The variety of stories, news, and content all brought together in a beautiful magazine format makes it very easy to become immersed.

3. What exciting ideas/prospects keep you awake at night?

Unilever’s ambition is to grow the business while reducing our environmental footprint and increase the positive contribution we make to society. For me, the opportunity to make Sustainable Living the centre of a brand’s proposition and find innovative ways to get these messages to our consumers is an incredibly exciting challenge. As technologies rapidly evolve, and consumption of media changes, there’s always a new opportunity to pilot something that’s not been done before.

4. What things might be a clincher when considering a deal with startups?

BRING MAGIC! Seeing real passion, energy and focus in the team. Also to keep it simple. Work out what the company stands for, and stick to this with a clear, targeted proposal.

5. Do you have any major no-nos in terms of pitches?

Do not baffle the audience with figures and science. Understand why your proposition would benefit the recipient in a clear, transparent approach.

6.  Accordingly, any things that you like to see during pitches?

To hear why the proposition is new and unique and how it could grow. Startups have the luxury of being able to adapt and change quickly. It would be great to see hunger, passion and agility come through during the pitch.

7. What are your opinions on startups knowing their figures and how exact they should be?

It’s important to have considered the revenue model so they are aware of their base costs, how they are able to monetize, and to be very aware of their audience. Ultimately who the proposition will appeal to. Firm figures aren’t completely necessary as they may change depending on the customer. Being open to further guidance is good.

8. What are your views on the UK startup scene, especially when compared with America?

The UK startup scene is very fresh and exciting. We worked with Betapond on our Waterworks initiative and were really impressed by their work, knowledge and ethos. For certain projects, the flexibility and new thinking startups offer is a great asset, as well as the ability to run fast and respond quickly. The US scene is more mature and better established. There is a huge amount to learn from the US globally.

9. What experience and feedback from mentoring process at Collider12?

It has been a tremendously interesting experience. I am relatively new to ventures and startups, so it has been eye-opening in many ways. The startups I’ve mentored have asked great questions and are very receptive to feedback. I’ve loved seeing the updates and progress made between sessions. The video introductions were a great way to meet the startups initially and quickly gain a clear idea of who the team are and their business.

Thank you so much Alex, and we look forward to continuing to work with you. 

At ceres.org, which is behind BICEP – a group of corporations determined to strangle competition and average Americans with burdensome climate regulation – the Climate Change page predicts apocalypse, of course. They use scare words like “droughts,” “floods,” and “melting glaciers,” to make their point without substantiation. Does Ceres claim they can magically make bad weather go away after four billion years of bad weather? Wow!

BICEP is an appropriate Orwellian acronym for a group of wealthy and powerful corporations who have decided to strong-arm American citizens into legislation and regulation that’s against their best interests and, more importantly, makes them further subservient to the whims of the state and those politically connected to the state.

BICEP’s members include Aspen Skiing Company, Starbucks, Intel, Levi Strauss & Co., IKEA, L’Oreal, Limited Brands, Nike, The North Face, the Portland Trail Blazers, Timberland and Unilever, among others. These companies have signed a Climate Declaration, which urges “federal policymakers to take action on climate change…”

A joint press release from Aspen Skiing Company and a group called Ceres, which calls itself an “advocate for sustainability leadership” and which organized the BICEP group, claims that so-called “extreme weather events like Sandy have affected several Climate Declaration signatories and exposed the United States’ economic vulnerability to climate change.”

Once again, weather is irrationally used as proof of man-made climate change. We’ve been through this a million times here at The Daily Plunge, but a quick refresher is in order in case you’ve missed previous posts, and for the benefit of those who may not have thought this one through:

• The climate is changing, has always changed, and will always change. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of earth’s four billion-year history should know this
• Sandy was not an outlier or a sign of catastrophe to come. Sandy was just one of literally trillions of “extreme weather events” the earth has seen over its lengthy history. There have been worst storms that have hit in the same general vicinity. The difference is that there are more people, more buildings and more opportunities for destruction because of a larger population concentrated in and around coastal areas. Duh!
• Let’s assume the earth is warming. This is not a bad thing. Global cooling is far more calamitous for human beings and every other species on this earth than is cooling. You can look it up, and I urge you to do so.
• Climate change cannot be “reversed.” Once again, the climate operates regardless of our intervention: it always has, always will and already is. Besides, who gets to set the thermometer? Aspen Skiing Company? Even if they could, that’s not a great idea because they’ll be sure to set it to benefit them, screwing all the people being fed in third-world countries by the expanding temperate zones.
• There’s this giant orb in the sky called the sun that acts as a furnace and regulator for the entire solar system. It is so large and ubiquitous that it accounts for 99.86 percent of the entire mass of the solar system. It’s quite possible that this sun, as they call it, might have something to do with the earth’s climate

Let’s move on to some points about the ideology behind BICEP and other like-minded groups, as well as the real effect it will have on average Americans should these groups get their way…

• At its core, Climate Change scaremongering, or Global Warmongering, has very little to do with environmental advocacy and very much to do with money and power. My father always likes to say, “Follow the money and you’ll find your answer.” In this case, ultra-giant corporations – the 1 Percent, if you will – are doing this for PR purposes, and if enacted, it has the additional benefit of squeezing out smaller competition. While the BICEP group can afford the regulations that go with cap-and-trade and other climate-based regulatory legislation, their smaller competitors cannot. Thus, they consolidate their power in their respective industry sectors, the CEOs and other executives pile on the bonuses, hobnob with the powerful in Washington, D.C., and so on and so forth. This is a uniquely American stripe of fascism whereby power and money becomes ever more concentrated in fewer hands, squeezes out the middle class and creates a permanent and growing underclass. I’d like to delve into how and why this works further, but it requires its own post. Suffice it to say that one need only study past fascist and totalitarian regimes to see the pattern
• Radical environmentalism, of which Climate Change scaremongering is an offshoot, is a form of religion. As I wrote in an earlier post, Climate Change Officially Jumps the Shark:

When environmentalists predict disaster, gird your loins and hold onto your wallet, because “environmentalism” is a penny-ante version of Liberation Theology (a.ka., Marxism). It is less science and more like religion. It has its holy days (Earth Day), its priesthood (scientists in search of grants) and its Apocalypse (climate change).

Like any religious cult, when they predict doomsday and it doesn’t happen they find an excuse and move on to the next doomsday prediction. In the past few decades we’ve had the Population Bomb (didn’t happen), the DDT scare (wasn’t true) and now Global Warming. But, of course, Global Warming has morphed into Climate Change, because how the hell can you argue against that?

• Climate Change regulation limits individual freedom. Why shouldn’t you be able to choose the most efficient and economical method available on the free market to produce energy? And, why should you wait for pie in the sky that may or may not ever happen? Because they told you so, that’s why, you minion

The press release claims that “a bold response to the climate challenge is one of the greatest American economic opportunities of the 21st Century.” How this is so, exactly, is not explained, nor is there any substantiation to back it up.

As the murderer’s row of failed “alternative energy” companies grows (Solyndra, A123 Systems, etc.) the more it seems these fascists advocate for more of the same. For instance, BICEP members supported the extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind power.

In other words, more of your tax dollars are going toward what is by and large an inefficient energy-producing method that’s had at least a thousand years to prove itself. Or, to put it another way, your tax dollars are being sent down a hole with no hope of ever hitting a gusher.

This is fine with BICEP members, who are likely so flush with cash that when it becomes impossible for average Americans to afford transportation other than the public type, they will jet around the world, burning fuel in the name of social justice and whatnot.

So, when I use the word “fascist” to describe this program I do not use it lightly. The unholy matrimony of big business and government is one of the hallmarks of fascism. It demands total fealty to the state and its unelected administrative regulatory arms that invade every sphere of the citizen’s private life.

In doing so, the collaboration of big business with big government robs the free market of the opportunity to innovate. Ironically, by advocating on behalf of Climate Change legislation, BICEP advocates for the stifling of the type of innovation that could yield economically viable alternative energy sources.

How long will it take to learn the lesson that centralized economic planning, which is what the type of Climate Change legislation BICEP agitates for effectively does, leads to shortages, economic calamity and a reduction in the standard of living?

I suppose when your standard of living gets to a certain point you can shield yourself from the consequences of your pet social and economic engineering projects, the unwashed masses be damned. Let them ride the bus!

EMG: Please tell us about the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, its mission, and some of the key achievements in its first 10 years.

The RSPO is a not‐for‐profit association that has been in existence since 2004, and which aims to unite stakeholders along the palm oil supply chain. This includes the producers, the processors, the manufacturers, the consumer goods manufacturers, the retailers, the financiers, and the social and environmental NGOs.

Our mission is simple: define what sustainably grown palm oil is, and promote its use. We certify crude palm oil as well as those products in the market that use it.

We have a vision to transform markets, making sustainable palm oil the norm. We’ve made some big achievements in the last 10 years. The first milestone was in 2005 when we developed a set of

standards for the sustainable production of palm oil. By 2008, the first RSPO‐certified products were coming on to the market. Since then, we have made progress so that today, 14% of all palm oil produced in the world is certified sustainable according to the RSPO.

Of course, we need to go much more than 14%. While we have more than 1000 members in over 50 countries, this is still only scratching the surface. We really need to tap into the markets of China and India because these are the largest consumers of palm oil. But our overall mission is to transform this commodity into one that is sustainable, and to make sustainable palm oil the norm.

EMG: What for you personally have been the main reasons for wanting to get involved in improving the managing of the cultivation of palm oil?

I left the corporate world and joined the WWF to do conservation work on the ground. This took me to those parts of the world where the landscape has oil palm development, as well as very high biodiversity.

The most charismatic species in those landscapes were the elephant and the orangutan. My job was to negotiate with the plantation sector to help them use better management practices to allow for wildlife corridors for these and other species, and to allow for a more environmentally‐friendly approach to use of chemicals.

It was during these times that I came to the realization that the business sector of the palm oil industry had created some serious problems. But from my work with them, I knew they had the potential to create the solutions as well. At that time I was at WWF Malaysia, and WWF international asked me to join them instead. They had just begun work on creating the RSPO with some other individual organizations. I was brought in because there was a need for someone who understood the industry to begin negotiations. So that’s how I stumbled into it.

I firmly believe that the possibility exists for the sustainable development of palm oil where the triple bottom line is maintained – for people, planet and profit. And it can only be done if we constantly ask the right people the hard questions about how to keep this balance.

EMG: So what is the RSPO’s definition of ‘sustainable’ when it comes to the cultivation of palm oil? How is it defined?

Our current definition of sustainable is based on standards that cover three core areas. The first is legality, which means we need to be able to say that the palm oil was produced on a plantation situated on land that is legally obtained, and all its operations have to require licences and permits.

The second core component is people. We need to be sure that the palm oil plantations were established with the free, prior, and informed consent of the local communities around them. We also need to know that the plantation is operating with the best interest of the workers in mind, and that it employs best practices when dealing with its employees.

The third core component relates to the environment. We need to make sure that these plantations will not develop at the expense of primary forests, that they have not been developed at the expense of what we call ‘high conservation value areas’ and that they have used best practices to avoid environmental damage.

EMG: What are the key benefits to a company that becomes a member of the RSPO?

The main benefits we’ve seen for producers are that they gain access to premium markets, as well as gaining a better understanding of how to manage their business across international situations. For example, some palm oil companies are multinational, with plantations in Malaysia as well as Indonesia or Africa, where each country has different laws and social issues. We find that if these companies employ the RSPO standards, they are better able to deal with these different situations, and manage the hurdles of legal, social and environmental issues.

The other benefit for the producer is they become more efficient. Because everything is recorded, it’s more transparent, which leads to less conflict and, in turn, less disruption in an operation. Our members also employ better agricultural practices for their yields.

For the buyers, investing in a sustainable supply chain means that they are investing in a supply chain that they can always rely on. If a producer is unsustainable, he tends to have problems with either his people or the environment. If he has to close down operations, then the buyers at the other end of the chain can’t get their regular supply, which means they have to source it somewhere else, or there will be price spikes in their supply, which they don’t want. For buyers, certified palm oil is not only an investment in a long term supply chain, it is also an issue of reputation.

EMG: Have you considered setting higher standards for more advanced companies, such as gold and silver standards in addition to one general standard? If so, what would be the differences?

We have considered this. If you look at us compared to other similar initiatives – Fair Trade, the Forestry Stewardship Council, the Marine Stewardship Council, the Better Sugar Initiative – it’s fair to say that we have grown the fastest. But even then, we are only currently certifying 14% of the total production of palm oil, so we are effectively still just a ‘niche’ in the market, and you cannot hope to transform the market if you continue to remain a niche player.

Currently, it’s our view that with all the effort we are putting into refining the one standard and getting it through a very complex supply chain, it would be a negative thing for us to introduce an additional higher level of the standard. That would create a ‘niche within a niche’, which as I’ve said makes it very hard to transform markets.

We do recognize that some companies want to move faster, but we all have to use the same supply chain, which would create a problem. This is because the supply chain, as we currently understand it, is finding it very difficult to keep up with the demands of production of sustainable palm oil in competition with the production of so‐called ‘unsustainable’ palm oil. The supply chain is simply not that flexible right now. I think while it’s good to have some differentiation between the faster‐moving companies, our focus is on transforming the markets, so we should avoid perceptions of being niche at all costs.

EMG: I understand that RSPO members account for about 40% of the global production of palm oil. What do you see as the challenges for achieving a higher percentage than that, and how do you see that changing over time?

I think the 40% figure is nice to hear, but it doesn’t really mean anything. It means that these companies have joined the RSPO, but have not necessarily changed their practices. It’s like joining a golf club. You can become a member of the golf club with all the bragging rights that entails, but it doesn’t mean you can play golf. Many of our member companies have not even got on the golf course yet; they’ve just become members.

I think it’s more important for us to increase the percentage of certified sustainable palm oil to a much higher amount. That’s where our energy is; to do that, we have to ensure that there is demand for certified palm oil, not just production. Rather than focus on 14% production, we should look at it as 14% consumption of certified palm oil. At the moment we are not getting 14% of consumption; we are getting something like 7‐8%. This means that only half the certified palm oil we produce is actually used in products that are sold as certified sustainable palm oil products.

EMG: So what is your response to people who say the RSPO is not doing enough, or needs to do more?

My response is, yes! We do need to do more! We currently review our standards every five years and have just completed our first review, which is now waiting to be endorsed. So we are moving forward. To those who say we aren’t doing enough I say join in the debate! Come and be part of the RSPO, and talk with us about how you want to see things move forward.

The unique thing about organizations like ours is that we create policies and standards through a multi‐stakeholder discussion. Any discussion that we have must have balanced representation from each of the seven categories of stakeholders. We have NGOs, buyers, producers and financiers all in one room, discussing standards and policies. What’s even more unique is that we approach decisionmaking through consensus. Everybody in the room has to agree. If there is even one person who does not agree, a policy cannot be made.

In this way we ensure that everybody is on board, and that there is a richness in the conversation because we have brought all the stakeholders together. That’s also how we stay current and relevant. Those outside the organization will not know this, but if they really want to change, our system allows for them to participate in these discussions as equal partners.

EMG: Compared to 10 years ago, what are the key changes you’ve seen today with international companies that want to steer clear of associations with deforestation and social conflict due to palm oil cultivation?

Ten years ago many companies simply did not know about these issues associated with palm oilproduction. While many do now, many others still don’t get it.

What I mean by this is that there are still companies that insist on the complete removal of palm oil as an ingredient. I always tell these companies that they have to understand that palm oil is the most efficient edible oil crop in the world. It produces 10 times more oil per hectare of land than any other edible oil. So if you remove a hectare of palm oil from the edible oil equation, it has to be replaced by 10 hectares of something else to meet the demand. If you save one hectare of rainforest from palm oil destruction, you’re actually putting at risk 10 hectares of Amazon land for producing soya or maize, or canola, or corn – none of which are anywhere near as efficient as palm oil.

So to those people who think we can do without palm oil, I tell them that is the wrong approach because to produce something else is ultimately doing more harm than good.

EMG: How do you see demand for palm oil developing over the next few decades?

I think demand for palm oil will be driven by the rising affluence of those fast‐developing countries in the world that they call the BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India and China ‐ and mainly because of their shift towards processed foods. A lot of palm oil goes into processed foods, and the more affluent a country you are, the more processed foods you will consume. Rising affluence also means products like shampoos and soaps will be in greater demand, and they also have a lot of palm oil in them. In fact, probably around 50% of anything you find in the supermarket contains palm oil. Toothpaste, pharmaceuticals and many cleaning agents contain palm oil derivatives. And of course anywhere you see ‘edible oil’ on the list of ingredients in processed foods it is most likely to be palm oil.

EMG: There has been an increased awareness globally of the negative side effects of palm oil production. How did that come about and how has the RSPO dealt with that?

The public became more aware of the environmental issues related to palm oil during the period of rapid expansion in the palm oil industry in Southeast Asia in the mid to late nineties. Then in the early 2000s there was the regional haze that developed in Southeast Asia that grabbed the world’s attention. Many people pointed the finger at the oil palm developers in Indonesia who were burning the peat soil in order to clear oil palm plantations. Thanks to the Internet, awareness increased dramatically.

The fact is RSPO is a direct reaction to all that. It was a reaction of some organizations who witnessed those events, who understood the issues, and decided that they had to do something about it. This is why they formed the RSPO in 2004.

By Daan Elffers, EMG Consultant, 
http://www.emg-csr.com/blog/sustainable-sourcing/

For more information - Unilever’s Fruttare Teams With Ne-Yo, Cher Lloyd and Coachella via Billboard.