On one hand Unilever see mothers as mentors of their daughters – as we see here in this snap from a Dove soap website.
On the other hand Unilever see mothers as sexual collaborators with their daughters and their boyfriends – as we see here in this ad from the guys at Axe. [Via Contexts]
Even if the Axe ad is a fake (which we have a slight nagging feeling it is), surely it’s a reminder that it’s for Unilever to stop playing 20th century branding games and start to grow up by dumping one of these brands and really living to a set of values rather than talk about several?
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Hmmm. I don’t know that the Axe ad is a fake or not, but it’s consistent with brand messaging. Since Unilever started running the real beauty campaign for Dove etc., some have pointed out that the same company, while saying “protect your daughters and your self esteem,” has been portraying young women as sexually crazed idiots who’d drop their panties at the first whiff of Axe — which is likely why it sells so well with 13-year-old boys.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Apparently the Axe Detailer product went into production after ‘the metrosexual is out’ memo was sent ;-)
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Not defending the tactics or subtext of these by any means, but why should Unilever market radically different products for completely different audiences in the same way? They are not, after all, telling a Unilever brand story (except by association–but does the audience know or care?).
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Some questions and observations:
1. Does Unilever actually have an umbrella strategy for all brands or does it treat each brand as a standalone, especially if they are for completely different audiences. In this case Axe is a male oriented product, while Dove is targeted towards females.
2. Not that I am condoning the advertising, but if their advertising is succesful in catching the attention of their target segment, then that’s good for them
3. Do customers actually notice that these products are from the same company and do they compare the promotional strategies across company brands? Although the former might be true, I doubt the latter.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I understand the argument that the average consumer doesn’t notice this contradiction but I think it’s worh hightlighting for a number of reasons:
* I think with digital media, consumers/people are far smarter than we think they are – and they sure can learn quickly about things like this.
* Unilever plays a 20th century branding game in a world of brands with real substance and real values. I can’t think that having a bunch of brand managers tucked away in the countryside managing a portfolio of brands can really be healthy strategy for a company in the 2010s.
* It’s important for us commentators to point out issues like this. We should agitate real change to make things better. How can we reinvent marketing if it’s easy to dismiss this as just a bit of fun advertising?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
not sure if this is really relevant from a marketing point of view, unilever is not a consumer facing brand therefore does not need to have a consistent voice. It owns brands which it segments which arw allowed to have different voices. Do mercedes and smart need to have the same point of view? Do loreal and kiehls need to have the same voice? If the issue is how dare unilever sexualise women, then they are not the first, and yes they are guilty. But not of hypocrisy or inconsistency.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
@piers comments
Important points, but to counter:
1. I do believe consumers are intelligent and I give them credit for seeking info that matters to them. But do they care about this? I certainly don’t care that my energy saving light bulbs are made by a company that also mines oil sands.
2. Their brands do have as much “real substance and real values” as the competing brands in their respective categories. Conglomerates are efficient by letting individual brand managers run their brands and tend to both lose efficiency and dilute brand voice by trying to enforce cohesive strategy across multiple product lines. It sounds like you instead want to argue against corporate mergers.
3. Yes, you should continue to point out things like this so we can discuss if they matter. While there isn’t enough input to declare a consensus, the comments seems to suggest this issue doesn’t matter.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:29 am
I agree with Piers in that this type of hypocrisy needs to be exposed and discussed. Who cares if each P&G brand operates as a seperate entity? All that argument does is add to the fact that business giants like P&G are willing to do anything to make a buck. Enough of that jibber-jabber. The real issue here is the ridiculousness of Axe’s message. Some copywriter at Axe’s agency has some Freudian fantasies he needs to keep to himself.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
well, thinking of the audience itself, it’s pretty relevant for the 13 year-old guys the “use it and get as much as sex you can handle” message of axe, as it’s relevant for the 20-some year old girls the “be happy with yourself as you are” message of dove.
the point is if, as a global brand, the company desires to use the brands individual efforts to strongest their corporation brand, them they should converge the values and strategy of both.
in terms of transparency, i believe that they make it clear it’s the same company whom adverts both brands with different strategies, as they don’t hide it under the commercial brands and appear broadly to the big audience. if they were hiding behind axe and dove, them it would be unethical and they could be targeted as non-transparent company, non-friendly and etc…
June 4th, 2009 at 2:26 pm