Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (
More info?)
Ben Myers wrote:
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just like the Dove body cream ads
> lately... Ben Myers
Speaking of which, this couldn't be more timely:
The New York Times
August 15, 2005
Fat Chance
By JESSICA SEIGEL
THE marketing campaign generating so much free publicity for a giant
cosmetics company shows real women, rather than anorectic teenagers, in
white bras and panties posing next to the slogan, "New Dove Firming. As
tested on real curves."
I personally love the images, but woe to Neanderthals like Richard
Roeper, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, who derided the Dove gals
as "chunky," igniting apoplexy over how much of a male chauvinist pig he
is. With the ink flying, Mr. Roeper defended himself as just being
honest - something we never doubted.
If only Dove would also come clean about its firming lotions. The truth
is that anticellulite creams don't work.
That's why Dove, which is owned by Unilever, makes the campaign about
images, not facts. Perhaps that explains why the multinational company's
elaborate marketing includes a 48-page report on women's attitudes about
beauty, but not one sentence giving information about how its firming
ointments were "tested on real curves," reducing flesh dimpling in just
two weeks.
Despite my repeated requests, Dove declined to release testing data -
not surprising considering the pseudo-scientific babble driving this
more than $40 million market, according to figures from research firms
NPD Group and Information Resources.
Of course, snake oil isn't all bad. The Dove lotions largely contain
glycerin, an old-fashioned moisturizer that your grandmother might have
used. And studies show that women see improvement from fake creams with
no active ingredients - a visual placebo. Considering today's pressure
to be beautiful, women may need that.
But according to 27 years of medical literature recently reviewed in the
Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, scientific proof that creams make
a real, lasting difference does not exist. "There is no evidence to show
that any topical medications improve cellulite," says Dr. Mathew Avram,
the study's author and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.
Yet marketers and even some doctors promote the idea that lumpy flesh is
a shameful but treatable condition caused by aging and obesity. That is,
if you call puberty "aging," because that's when skin dimpling first
appears, likely connected to the release of female hormones. (For that
reason, oral contraceptives may worsen skin puckering, and males who
lose testosterone after prostate surgery may develop it.)
Cellulite is a concocted idea imported from France. Hardly a disease or
condition, it is how fat is arranged inside the female body, especially
on thighs, hips and rear. And it affects some 90 percent of adult women.
To change it, says Dr. Avram, you'd have to rejigger underlying body
architecture, which is why exercising and losing weight helps some. But
only some. "What you have here is normal female physiology," he says.
"Skinny women have it too."
While laws in the United States allow companies to hedge product claims
with phrases like "appearance of" or "look of," that doesn't fly in
Britain. This spring, the British advertising industry's self-financed
watchdog ruled that Estée Lauder's advertising for Body Performance
Anti-Cellulite Visible Contouring Serum misled consumers. The beauty
company's research, the agency found, failed to prove that its
"thermogenic complex" actually "melts away the fatty look of cellulite,"
reducing "the appearance of cellulite."
Why didn't the British accept the "appearance of" trick in a ruling
affecting the whole industry? "We believe," says Matthew Wilson, of the
British Advertising Standards Authority "the consumer might be confused."
Oh.
Though Estée Lauder executives insist their research is valid, the
company pulled the advertisement, sparking bad publicity and debate in
Britain over truth in advertising. Yet the scandal received little or no
coverage in the United States, though Estée Lauder has run nearly
identical advertisements here (in this paper, among others), sells the
cream here and continues to make even stronger claims about the
product's virtues on its Web site.
Instead, this summer the American media ran dozens of articles and
broadcasts debating the "look of" and "appearance of" the images in
Dove's campaign. Journalists, at least, should go beyond "appearances
of," even if the embattled, overburdened Food and Drug Administration
and the Federal Trade Commission can investigate only the most
egregious, dangerous frauds.
On the bright side, at least Dove's firming lotions are cheap, averaging
about $8 a bottle compared with $50 a bottle for Estée Lauder's cream.
It's nice when snake oil is reasonably priced. But if Dove truly wants
to "help women feel that beauty is within their reach," as its campaign
claims, the company should stick to soap, moisturizer and the truth: Any
woman worried about dimpled flesh while vamping on a giant billboard in
white bra and panties would benefit far more from a little chiffon wrap
than bogus lotions.
Jessica Seigel teaches journalism at New York University and comments on
culture for NPR's "Day to Day" program.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/opinion/15seigel.html?oref=login
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram