It's nice to know where your money is going, and it's even nicer to know that your money is going to something charitable and is going to be spent on something you support. That's why people like recent Dove advertisements informing consumers that part of the money they spend on Dove products goes towards the "self-esteem fund," which runs programs aimed at helping young girls and young women see themselves as beautiful. The self-esteem fund identifies as its enemies the "impossibly perfect" women represented on magazine covers and advertisements.
Ads like these ones, for Axe body spray. It's a good thing money spent on Dove goes nowhere near the production of these ads, right? Except that isn't true. What a lot of people don't realize is that Dove and Axe are brands, not companies. One big organization, Unilever, makes both of them. The same people are financing the toxic ads and the efforts to undo their effects. I'm not the only person to realize this - someone parodied the Dove "Onslaught" commercial, replacing all of the perfect-woman images with clips from Axe commercials in this video.
It's no surprise that big companies lie about their mission and values to appeal to specific demographics. The website for the clothing chain Hot Topic states Just like with the whole alternative music thing, Hot Topic customers were drawn to the underground cartoon, cult movie and comic book scenes. It was a unique culture they could call their own, and it was difficult to find merchandise from these licenses. Hot Topic brought the world of South Park, Care Bears, Superman, SpongeBob SquarePants and lots of other pop icons into our stores. Last time I checked, "underground," "cult," "alternative" and "unique" scenes did not include "[licensed] merchandise" and "pop icons" from the country's biggest networks and syndicates. Hot Topic's slogan, "everything about the music," seeks to distance itself from the "sell-out" image and appeal to the rebellious, fight-the-man tendencies of young people - but it carries exclusively the products of large corporations and the symbols of mainstream American culture.
Hot Topic proved itself to be more about the money than the music or the "underground" ideals when it pulled TWLOHA t-shirts since they contained "religion" and "profanity." A chain that seems to pride itself on individuality and pushing against the mainstream gave up the opportunity to fight for free self-expression and instead caved to the demands of the offended - before the offended made any demands! The policy has apparently always been in place to forbid "religion" and "profanity" as a pre-emptive measure to prevent controversy. Yes, we're fighting the man and his corporate PC BS - in our own corporate PC BS way. Yet its customers continue to be deluded into thinking that money spent in Hot Topic stores supports an underground, unique, individualistic and anti-corporate business. The "Hot Topic Foundation" seeks to enable kids to express themselves in music, writing or other art forms, but one wonders how much censorship exists within the program to limit this expression. I can't find a "Mission Statement" or "Guidelines" of the program anywhere online that spell out rules and regulations, but I can't find the "no profanity or religion" thing either. Nothing says Power to the People like a lack of transparency and rules you don't know if you've broken until you break them!
I have no idea what's going on in theTV ads for a new FX show called "Sons of Anarchy" that show an American flag, right side up and not on fire, behind the title. The website for the show (strangely missing videos of the ads) says it's about a motorcycle gang, which I think is called Sons of Anarchy, with the goal of "ensuring that their simple, sheltered town of Charming, California remains exactly that." While I'm sure some brand of neo-anarchist could make the case that keeping a town sheltered and culturally self-sufficient is a sort of anarchy - letting the residents self-govern and isolating them from big government's influence - the imagery used in the ads seems to evoke more of the radical anarchy people think of; the type those on Zombietime advocate by wearing black and burning things down, and fighting for the destruction of everything that small-town/suburban life stands for. Maybe the show is intelligently and correctly probing the nuances of anarchy - referring to the men as "Sons of" to imply that they were influenced by its ideas but maybe not die-hard followers - but from the way it's being portrayed, it seems to me like it's trying to look "edgy" by piggybacking on misused ideas and symbolism.
Procter & Gamble is at least trying to get things right, though as a large company it's finding it easier to appeal to people's sense of charitable values than it is to actually carry them out. This commercial for the One Pack = One Vaccine campaign implies that P&G is about promoting global health. Unfortunately, it was named #52 in a list compiled by UMass of the Top US Corporate Air Polluters. Still, they at least appear to be working on this problem (pledging to reduce emissions 10% by 2012), which is more than I can say for Unilever or Hot Topic. Off topic but interesting: if anyone is interested in a sociological perspective on the Pampers commercial, Sociological Images has one here.
In related, happier WOCAM Inc. news, those who agreed with my post about drug companies giving free crap to doctors will be glad to hear that a new drug marketing code says that the presence of the swag implies an "unprofessional relationship" and effective in 2009, drug companies are prohibited from giving out these "reminder gifts" (creeeeepy phrase). Awesome! I'm really excited that so many others are taking notice and calling Big Pharma out on its shadiness that things are really starting to change. Reuters has the story here, and I'm so thrilled about it that I don't even feel like getting annoyed at the fact that such an issue is under "Oddly Enough" news.
29 comments:
If they weren't lying, would it be okay for them to put the bottom line first?
you mean if they called themselves WOCAM, Inc. and said "we're only making this so you buy it so we profit, now buy it if you want it"?
"Unilever" isn't some monolithic evil monster. "Unilever" isn't even a physical *thing*. It's an abstract concept, as all corporations are. It's a set of people. Maybe some of the people who are elements of this set are evil; maybe some of them aren't. You can't say "Unilever says this" and "Unilever does that" as if it's some sort of hive mind. A consequence of this fact is that if "Unilever" does things that are hypocritical, it's probably not anyone's *fault*. Do you honestly think some cigar-smoking fat white man sat in his office and said "muahahaha... we'll pretend to be promoting the self-esteem of 'ordinary' women with Dove ads while we simultaneously destroy that self-esteem with Axe ads! If it weren't for you meddling kids..."? It's almost certain that the people who came up with that charity campaign for Dove have never even met the people who came up with Axe's marketing strategy.
And OF COURSE the people who made this care about Unilever's bottom line. If they didn't, Unilever wouldn't exist! But they are all *humans*, and not Unilever Bottom-Line Drones. They also care about the world, and the problems in society, and whether this proposal will impress their boss, and whether their grandmother is recovering well from her hip replacement, and how their son is doing on his math test, and whether they'll be home in time to watch the Simpsons. Thinking that this "hypocrisy" is anything but an accidental result of the emergent behavior of a gigantic collection of everyday people, like for example an evil conspiracy to dupe you into supporting for the exploitation of women, is just absurd.
brennan, you should know thanks to my "no such thing as America" opinion that I agree that technically there is no Unilever hive-mind. My point is the money is going to the right place.
Your excuse that it's individuals making little decisions is exactly what makes people think they're excluded from the big picture, so they aren't responsible or powerful enough to bother doing the right thing. Every one of those people had the opportunity to say "hey, don't we also make Axe? If we believe in this so much, maybe we shouldn't be working for Unilever," so they quit or they demand that it change or whatever. If everyone says "I'm just one person, I'm not the company" then we DO get a hive-mind effect where everyone just goes along with what's going on. Your point that Unilever is just made up of people supports this - there's no outside force, The Great Company, that's our there degrading women and misleading customers. The people have all the control.
Your point is that the money is going to the right place? Either this is a typo, you forgot what point you were making, or you have some previously unheard-of definition of the word "right". Anyway...
You think people are going to quit their jobs and live on the street because they disagree with something Unilever does? Do you think my dad (who makes airplane computer systems) should quit his job if the branch of Honeywell that makes thermostats starts doing something he disagrees with?
And these people ARE doing something. They ARE working for change! The fact that the evil comes from another part of Unilever doesn't change that. And if they quit their jobs at Unilever, they would be much, much less able to make positive change since they wouldn't have Dove's gigantic advertising budget behind them. What would quitting change?
You misunderstood me. I never said that "the people are in control". Which people? It's an emergent behavior, just like ants building anthills is an emergent behavior. Are the ants "in control" of what their anthill looks like? If they make their anthill into a certain shape that you don't like, is that anyone's fault? No.
Oops, I meant same. Sorry.
And yeah, ideally, in LilyLand, people wouldn't lend their efforts and expertise to helping things they think are questionable. Then the companies hiring those people are held accountable by their workers. Ethics ensue.
The Dove people are working futilely if the profits from Dove go to the same place as the profits from Axe.
And yes, it's the ants' fault!
Why can't people help things that are "questionable" if in the process they are doing more good than harm?
The increase in Dove's profits that results from this ad campaign is only a small fraction. And it's only a small fraction of THAT that ends up being used for Axe ads. All this coupled with the fact that Axe ads are so ridiculous and silly that it's difficult to imagine someone interpreting them seriously, means that the extra money people are spending on Dove almost certainly does more good than harm.
I ask you again, what would be the use of quitting, then?
Thought experiment: If a genie in a bottle said "I will eliminate all the corruption and poverty in Eastern Europe, but in return you have to donate one dollar to a child porn producer", would you do it?
the effect would be: employees quit en force, the company goes "oh crap we should do something," and is forced to do the right thing so people are willing to work for them.
i'm gonna have to agree with Brennan on this one, although i do see where Lily's ideas would work in an idealized world.
hmmm. this seems to be the conclusion in most of your disagreements.
:-(
Lily, personifying Unilever, as I've been trying to explain, renders your whole point meaningless; if you can rephrase that without any personification I'd be glad to respond.
Also, you never addressed the main point of the post, which is the fact that they do more good than harm, or the thought experiment that is 100% isomorphic to what we're discussing (although exaggurated for effect)
Bailey: Haha, not always. Sometimes Lily ends up convincing me that she's right, but I don't think that will happen here.
Also, (but watch out! This post isn't an invitation to ignore my previous points. I expect your reply to be very long.) why don't you give up your life in America and immigrate to a country whose policies, laws, and culture are more in line with your views and ideals? You imply that people should make extreme personal sacrifices (like voluntary unemployment when they're trying to support a spouse and kids) in order to not be associated with something that performs some "evil" activities, but I don't exactly see you walking the walk.
Do you see me lending my skills to help the US government do stuff I don't like it to do? No. So I'm not not walking the walk. I don't buy from Wal-Mart, nor do I take prescription drugs, nor do I design nukes for the army.
If people didn't work for a company because the company has hypocritical policies, the higher-ups would be forced to implement new policies so people would be willing to do so.
Bailey, you say my points only make sense in an idealized world, and I agree. I'm fighting for that ideal world. If everyone held other people accountable, it would be that idealized world. Saying "people aren't doing that now, so wishing they did is false and unrealistic" is kind of going backwards.
But every time you pay sales tax in Arizona you're helping incarcerate people in Joe Arpaio's cruel and unusual prisons. You also still haven't answered most of my arguments.
I'm moving out of Arizona and into a very Blue state as soon as I get the chance. Walking the walk.
What arguments haven't I addressed?
Doesn't matter. Maryland (or wherever) is engaged in commerce with Arizona and so you existing and buying things in Maryland contributes to Arizonans and Arizonan businesses having more money and hence paying higher taxes.
The fact is, no matter where you go or what you do, you're contributing to *something* evil, no matter what. According to you, the only solution is to kill yourself.
But I think a better solution is to do as much GOOD and as little HARM as possible, sort of like the people at Dove.
Nice fallacy, Brennan, thanks for playing. There are no countries I can move to where all my tax money goes to things I agree with, so there's no way to prevent it. Quitting a company and leaving a country are two very different things.
That's exactly my point: there's no way to prevent it. No matter what good you do, it will always somehow caused some sort of collateral damage. And what's the difference? Both unemployment and emigration would represent extreme hardship, although I think emigration even less so!
If you're an advertising guru, there are plenty of ways to exercise that talent and get paid that don't involve such blatant hypocrisy. They could stay at Unilever but refuse to work on the misleading Dove or misogynistic Axe ads; or they could work for a different company. People aren't off the hook just because doing the right thing involves hardship. If we want the world to change, we need to get off our butts and make sacrifices.
I'm still not clear on what major personal sacrifices you've made to help save the world.
Also, are you serious? Can you imagine them trying to get another job?
Interviewer: Why'd you suddenly quit your job with Dove?
Advertising Guru: Well, I don't like making the advertisements my bosses tell me to make, because I don't personally agree with them!
Interviewer: OK, you're hired!
It's not as easy as just "going and working somewhere else". Maybe this is feasible for Dove factory aseembly line workers, but it isn't for someone in a competitive intellectual field like advertising.
Also, I don't know when we're going to the movies tomorrow. You should text/call me when you get a chance.
At the risk of sounding rude, Brennan, that's a crap excuse. I know the world isn't perfect, and I also know that trying to make it perfect isn't an easy task. But you've just given a free pass to everyone in politics who helps facilitate corruption because, hey, a guy's gotta get re-elected, right? You're excusing the teachers who keep mum about injustice from the administration because who wants to burn bridges? If everyone thought like you do (which, sadly, almost everyone does) then things would never change.
The people we admire for bringing about change gave up a lot of things. MLK was shot, Gandhi was beaten, Mandela was imprisoned, plenty of German citizens went to the death chambers for helping out Jewish friends, the FBI messed with the lives of the leaders of the 1960's peace movement. In your world, all these people should never have given up personal security for the greater good. Consciences are terrible things to ignore, for whatever the reason. If enough people start sticking to their ethics regardless of the cost, other people will be forced to take note.
It deeply saddens me that someone as intelligent as yourself, someone as aware of how much this world is messed up, can still believe that it's okay for people to continue selfishly allowing injustice and hypocrisy to continue for their benefit - that it doesn't make you as angry as it makes me.
I have to agree to our point.Most of the axe ads confuse us.Some have the opinion that AXE body spray attracts opposite sex.Now AXE is giving samples too.
What do corrupt (or lax on corruption, which is the same thing) teachers and politicians have in common? They all do *more harm than good* by not fighting The Man, and so if they're perfect people they should, like Mandela et al. did in the same situation. But you're missing the central point of my argument, which is that the people who make the Dove ads are doing *more good than harm*, since if they quit Dove they would be less able to get the message out, and since their accidental contribution to poor body image among women (through Axe ads) is, as I already explained, miniscule compared to their contribution to FIGHTING poor body image among women.
And it's absurd that you're attacking Dove employees rather than Axe employees!
Also, the fact that I sadden you, etc., although upsetting to me, is an irrelevant ad hominem argument.
You make a good point about the Dove people. Either you were unclear about that being your main point or I'm an idiot.
As for why I'm not going after the Axe people, it's because I'm not as offended at that portrayal of women as I am by misleading the public and being a hypocrite.
Well, that's not all of my main point. The other part of it is that no matter what you do, you're always causing harm, so you should be trying to maximize the difference between the good you do and the harm you do, not trying to eliminate harm.
I honestly don't think you've given any evidence or convincing argument that the Dove people are "misleading the public" or being "hypocrites", especially in light of the fact that you seem to agree with my argument (or at least say it's "a good point" and offer no rebuttal, which if this were an LD round, would be exactly the same thing as agreeing to it, but since this is *not* an LD round, it's only almost exactly the same thing) establishing that Dove employees should *not* be quitting their jobs with Dove.
Also, if you were an idiot, I would have stopped posting here after your second or third reply.
Out of curiousity, has anyone looked at the financial reports as to what the Dove Self-Esteem Fund is or where the money goes, specifically? Many Unilever-type corporations keep the money from one brand, or division, within that division. Thus, the profits from the ads for Dove would not, in fact, go to Axe. Some would probably go to the higher-ups, in charge of both brands. Anyway, original question is what is of importance to me here.
Amanda,
That is a great point and it reinforces my arguments. However I'm not sure where (or even if) information on where Dove's profits go is published.
Brennan and Amanda - I looked for that but Unilever's financial play-by-play isn't on their website. To me, it's still an issue that the same big company is getting all the money.
Post a Comment