Grant McCracken has a debate going on over at his blog about the discussion about Unilever and whether it can continue to own brands like Axe and Dove with such opposing brand values. Grant says that it’s not for consumers to demand how companies behave in terms of brand ownership:
First, I think, it’s not for us to say what Unilever can and can say when it makes an ad for Axe. To be sure, there is nothing quite so obnoxious and in the wrong circumstances dangerous as a teen age boy. But it is the job of the marketer to find out what animates the consumer, the meanings at work in his life, to discover his “mattering map.” And Axe campaign does this very well. We don’t like it. Too bad. We are not the arbiters of teen boys or American corporations.
Second, we cannot demand consistency from Unilever in its marketing and branding efforts. It is going to speak in several languages. It is after all operating in an increasingly diverse society and several markets. Consistency would blunt its marketing efforts. More to our point, consistency would blunt its responsiveness.
Here’s my response in his comments:
I think that we’re moving into an era where you’re not going to be able to have companies with brands with such opposing values. People want to work with (buy from) companies that have values that they adhere to. That’s why Method has taken such a swipe at Unilever’s soap market.
I don’t think consumers are demanding that Unilever changes. They’re just getting informed: The transparency of this digital age shines a light on Unilever and the company is left looking like it’s just another marketing company. We’re left understanding that Axe and Dove aren;t seperate companies that Unilever owns (and therefore may have some reason to act differently) - just different departments on different floors in the same grey building. And no one really wants to work with a marketing company.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
