experience matters

Do a search for “dove real beauty controversy” and you’ll see a long history of debate about Unilever’s ground breaking campaign. Just this last month, there was the big retouching controversy. By the time the claim was refuted by the photographer, Annie Leibovitz and the retoucher, Pascal Dangin, the press was onto the next story and the damage was done.

Now do a search for “dove onslaught” on Youtube or Google and you’ll see a viral video imitating Dove’s 2007 viral film, “Onslaught”. Fortunately for Dove, Greenpeace released “Onslaught(er)” only a week before the retouching scandal and it missed attention in the press. But Greenpeace did their search engine homework and now, it’s very difficult to distinguish the original video from the imitator in search results.

For a brand that promotes such a positive message, Dove has sure attracted a lot of negative attention recently. Why?

First, there’s a question of the tactics. I used to wonder at all those art directors and copywriters who kept copies of Adbusters on their desks. Now I wonder if “Onslaught” is the result. The video boldly appropriates a controversial, hard hitting, in-your-face style more typical of social activists than big brands. See the video below.

It’s effective, isn’t it? But it’s also like waving a red flag at a bull. Now watch Onslaught(er) in which Greenpeace criticizes Dove for using palm oil harvested from clear cut forests in Indonesia.

While other viral videos have already called Unilever hypocritical, Greenpeace makes the most impact with the extraordinary quality of their mimicry and it renders Dove’s message about body image nearly irrelevant. Did the campaign meet its goals? On May 9th, only two weeks after Onslaught(er) was released, Unilever met with Greenpeace and agreed to a number of big changes including support for a moratorium on palm oil deforestation in South East Asia.

The authors of This is Herd, the blog for British Public Relations firm, Cow, warn that Onslaught(er) has important lessons for companies that dare to simply emulate the tactics of brands like Dove or Innocent Smoothies. And what are the lessons?

First – if you live by the sword, prepare to die by the sword. After appropriating the tactics of activists, Dove became the target of activists.

The second lesson is from the books of British account planner, John Grant. Brands need to be very careful when and how they talk about their values publicly. They also need to be very thoughtful about how they demonstrate their commitment and authenticity. While Unilever has acted quickly to address the palm oil question, they still struggle with “walking their talk” while having diametrically opposed brands like Dove and Axe in their portfolio.

The third lesson is the simplest.  It’s about having the courage to act quickly according to the organization’s values. After all, critics will criticize the most sincere and authentic organizations at the slightest hint of scandal.

As more brands try to promote awareness and consideration through values-based campaigns, levels of scrutiny and criticism from the press and Internet-enabled consumers will only increase. Don’t try this kind of marketing without a net.

Last 5 posts by Dave Robertson

• Zuckerburg or my 12 year old – who do I listen to? – June 3rd, 2008
• DBC. Embrace it now. – May 15th, 2008
• Canadians blame themselves. Again. – April 25th, 2008
• And I forgot my camera … – April 16th, 2008
• Earth Hour: Could it have been better? – April 10th, 2008

2 Comments