Showing posts with label fashion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fashion. Show all posts

Friday, February 6, 2015

Well, I guess I own pizza underwear now

Look what arrived in the mail today, just in time for Valentine’s Day!


On a completely unrelated note, is there a way to make my credit card company text me a riddle or something that I would have to solve before they authorize any purchases made between 2 AM and 4 AM just to make sure that I’m actually fully awake and capable of making sound sartorial decisions? I’m asking for a friend.

* * *

Actually, what fascinates me most about my new pizza underwear is this warning label.

"Not intended for children 14 years of age or younger. Non nestiné aux enfants de 12 ans ou moins."

I don’t know what’s more confusing: the fact that this underwear has a minimum age requirement for some reason, or that the age requirement inexplicably drops by two years if you happen to speak French.

(They probably meant to write “non destiné,” not “non nestiné.”)

* * *

I am, of course, joking when I say that my new pizza underwear arrived just in time for Valentine’s Day, because I’m afraid I am once again single and bitter and going to shame-eat a lot of hamburgers this Feb. 14.

But I’m thinking, what if I happen to be wearing my pizza ‘pants on a date that goes particularly well? Ideally, I’d be with someone who shares my enthusiasm for pizza-themed undergarments, and the night will go splendidly.

It’s just as plausible, though, that my ridiculous underwear could put the brakes on the evening. I’m not sure what I could say to make things better, but, as is usually the case, I certainly know what I could say to make things worse. Here are five, in descending order:

5. You know what they say—even when it’s bad, it’s good.

4. Look, it may start off as a Totino, but I swear it becomes a DiGiorno once it’s heated up.
3. “Thirty minutes or less”? I’ll come in half that time, guaranteed.

2. I know you drove all the way out here, but I can’t promise a big tip.

1. You might want to dab it with a napkin first.

Before you judge me, I would like to point out my restraint by neither going for any sausage or pepperoni double entendres nor making any references to “Papa John’s” sounding vaguely phallic. And I didn’t even mention the fact that Pizza Hut kind of rhymes with “piece of butt” if you slur it.

On second thought, judge me; I guess I deserve it.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

It’s not the meat in your feet, but the pep in each step

I went to the mall today to exchange some shoes, and I had this conversation with a cute salesperson.

“How can I help you?”

“I bought these shoes from the website, but I think they’re one size too big. I was wondering if I could exchange them for smaller ones.”

“Sure, no problem.”

“I’m not going to lie—it’s kind of emasculating having to go one size smaller.”

She giggles and looks at the shoes. “Okay, I’ll go ahead and look for an eight-and-a-half.”

“Umm. Better just get an eight.”

Oh,” she says, with a smartass smile.

“I swear I’m usually a nine.”

“And I swear I believe you.”

Not that it matters, but for the record, I really am usually a nine… ladies.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

This Forever 21 model really hates his Cloud-Sleeve Bomber Jacket

While I’m still on the “make fun of teen clothing retailers” beat: this guy really does not look happy about modeling Forever 21’s “Cloud-Sleeve Bomber Jacket” (I’ve archived the page here, in case cumulonimbus coats become a thing and Forever 21 sells out of them):


I know that models usually shoot for an aloof, mildly disdainful look because stupid people find cold indifference alluring1, but this goes way beyond that. You can see the resignation in his eyes when he realizes that, oh God, people are going to see me with cloud arms and there’s nothing I can do about it.


From another angle, you can see strife all over his face as he reassesses the entirety of his life decisions.


And finally, you see him wondering if it’s too late for him to finish up his HVAC certificate.


(It’s not, and it’s important, honest work.)

Although I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want a cloud jacket now. If anybody wants to make that happen, my email address is jdellosa@gmail.com. But no pressure.



1Needless to say, I am a stupid person who needs to get better taste in girls2.
2Not like that. You’re gross, dude.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Aéropostale’s ridiculous product descriptions make me feel old like whoa

Shopping at any teen-oriented mall clothing retailer is usually enough to make me feel impossibly old—music that’s unfamiliar and therefore annoying, pictures of models who aren’t old enough to buy beer in Canada, and fellow shoppers who are trying to gauge whether I’m a creepy dude trolling for barely-18s or if I’m a vaguely out-of-touch uncle searching for a nephew’s birthday gift who still thinks Hollister is totes rad. (Joke’s on you, kids—the correct answer is “I am in ‘overwrought quarter-life crisis’ mode and am dealing with being closer to 30 than 20 by dressing like a 16-year-old in 2005.”)

But there’s no retail experience that makes me more acutely aware of my senescence than shopping on Aéropostale’s website. Aéropostale is definitely not for me—they’re “principally targeting 14 to 17-year-old young women and men”—and they make that clear with some amazing product descriptions for each and every one of the products they sell.

As far as I can tell, Aéropostale is headquartered in the town of Riverdale, and everybody’s biggest concerns are running “a smooth campaign for class prez” or making “that first impression count when meeting your GF’s dad.” (Incidentally, Aéropostale’s Long Sleeve Textured Woven Shirt and Multi-stripe Crew Neck Sweater, respectively, can help with each.) Indeed, the product descriptions are simultaneously ridiculous and weirdly poignant—at least for me, each of my eye rolls are accompanied by a pang of nostalgia for the days when my biggest worries were minor enough to be solved with the purchase of affordably-priced apparel.

In any case, let’s marvel at some of these product descriptions that somebody was inexplicably given actual, spendable money to write.

Description: When that girl from first period gets flirty and a sweetie from second shoots you a smile, you know the Brooklyn Calling Star Pocket Tee is workin' its magic! With its stellar print and stylish chest pocket, this shirt has all the ladies swooning. Pair it with dark-wash jeans to turn up the charm!


Admittedly, it’s been a while since my day was divided into periods, but I really don’t remember a chest pocket being a component in making a lady—let alone all the ladies—swoon.

Description: Go into the big exam knowing you're too legit to quit, and tackle those tough questions in this Brooklyn Calling Striped Colorblock Pocket Tee! The bold, high-contrast style gives you a super-smart look, so put on your flat-brimmed thinking cap, then finish the essay while you're in beast mode.


So, I’m going to go into the big exam like MC Hammer in 1991? Does that mean I’m going to fail? And what does finishing an essay while in beast mode entail—do I use the active voice instead of the passive voice or something?

Description: If your idea of a great staycation includes comfy style and tons of video games, throw on our Aero NY Skinny Sweatpants and grab that controller! These fleecy bottoms feature a super-soft construction, hand pockets and a stretchy ribbed waist; Aero appliqués and "NY 1987" embroidery add a classic signature touch.


I really like how Aéropostale found a positive way of saying, “If all you’re going to do is be a lazy fucker in front of the TV, wear sweatpants, you big life-waster.” Jake the Dog was right.

Description: Whether you're stuck in Lametown, cruising NYC, or kickin' it in LA, our Aero Banner Logo Pullover Hoodie cuts a super-trendy look for any place in the USA! It's decked out with blocky "Aero NY-87" text and features a fleecy feel and classic kangaroo pocket.


Aéropostale: clothing for teens who hate their dumb lame town and I hate you all and none of you get me and I can’t wait until I’m 18 so I can finally get the hell out of this place.

Description: Dude, it's okay to admit when cold temps make ya shiver, but you won't ever need to when you layer up with this toasty Brooklyn Calling Long Sleeve Colorblocked Thermal Tee! Waffle-knit fabric ensures warmth, so your GF will never find out how fast you succumb to chilly air; colorblocked raglan sleeves add way-cool casual style, too.


Let’s ignore the contradictory message of “It’s okay to say you’re cold, but buy this shirt so that no one knows you’re cold” and instead focus on how brazenly manipulative this product description is—it’s a stone’s throw away from just outright saying, Buy this shirt so that your girlfriend won’t know you’re a total pussy, bro!

Description: The cosmopolitan cutie concealed on this Free State City Girl Graphic T has traveled the world lookin' for love, but you'd be the only guy to catch her eye! It features the names of some awesome urban locales; pair this tee with crisp chinos and get ready to give those smiling ladies your digits.


This T-shirt is called “City Girl,” and the description says that it “features the names of some awesome urban locales.” Serious question: Does Aéropostale think Denmark is a city?

Description: When you accept first prize for the best-decorated pumpkin in the patch, make sure you're rockin' our Solid Lace Crop Tank! You'll make a memorable impression thanks to its classic solid shade, cool lace detailing, and cute keyhole-closure back.


“Best-decorated pumpkin in the patch” isn’t a euphemism, right?

Description: Toss on this Locker Stock Xmas Games Graphic T, then polish those pong skills during all the crazy festivities! It's designed with colorful plastic cups stacked to form a Christmas tree. Don't forget to take a break and toast to your fun-lovin' bros!


This is the one that made me feel completely ancient. “Xmas games” and “pong skills” are Aéropostale’s way of studiously avoiding referencing alcohol—because, again, their target demographic is young folks between the ages of 14 and 17. In other words, I’m shopping for clothes at a store that will feature a shirt with a ping-pong ball and Solo cups but has deemed it inappropriate to actually say the words “beer pong.” Even American Eagle—for which I’m also too old—has no qualms about a Christmas-themed booze reference. (On the other hand, they also have no qualms about having Santa with a candy-striped phallus, so, yeah.)



Bah. I’m too old for this shit. I’ll be at Banana Republic.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Abercrombie & ditched: Mike Jeffries is out as CEO; I dance on his professional grave

Mike Jeffries resigned as CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch on Dec. 9.

This is certainly good news, as Jeffries is notorious for being an asshole of impressive magnitude. Under his leadership, Abercrombie & Fitch was sued in 2003 for employment discrimination for racist and sexist hiring practices; apparently, Jeffries loved him some white dudes, and this was reflected in who was hired for his stores and who got the best jobs once they were hired. (This is a polite way of saying that women, black people, Hispanics, and Asians had a tough time getting hired, and those that did often worked out-of-sight in the backroom.) The lawsuit ended in a settlement that included the company paying $40 million to discriminated workers and a revision of its hiring and promotion practices.

Jeffries also earned a lot of ire over some well-publicized remarks about who Abercrombie & Fitch’s target market is. From a 2006 interview with Salon:

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he says. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”

I mean, in a way, the candor is laudable, but yikes.

In any case, Abercrombie & Fitch’s falling profits and brand image had put Jeffries’s future with the company in jeopardy in recent years, so while his resignation happened quickly, it wasn’t exactly unexpected. To be fair, many mall clothing retailers are suffering, thanks in part to the recession and teens with lighter wallets and changing tastes.

But Abercrombie & Fitch—by far the priciest of what some1 call the Teen Mall Clothing Triple A, along with American Eagle and Aéropostale—was probably the most doomed in the wake of the recession. Abercrombie & Fitch appealed to kids who weren’t rich but wanted to appear rich; when the recession hit, the faux rich kids couldn’t afford their clothes anymore and the real rich kids weren’t buying their clothes from them in the first place. And once that became evident, fewer and fewer people felt compelled to don the moose.

So let’s take a moment to dance on the professional grave of Jeffries, a creepy dude with creepy fake blonde hair who appealed to the basest parts of American vanity and consumerism and still found a way to fuck it up. I hope he enjoys his retirement while he can, because once he passes, he will surely find himself damned to an afterlife where I presume a bunch of larger folks wearing Faded Glory-brand jean shorts and camo cargos will pelt him with copies of the September issue of Farm & Tractor Fashion for all eternity2.

* * *

In any case, Jeffries’s resignation reminded me of a small little project I did with a friend several years ago. We sneaked into an Abercrombie & Fitch and a Hollister at the mall and surreptitiously placed little activist flyers into their clothing. I thought we were being sneaky, until a customer asked us a question about a price, and we had to explain we don’t actually work there (“Oh, I’m sorry, I just saw you guys handling the clothes and I just assumed—my bad”).

Granted, the flyers don’t reflect my best writing or my best thinking, and rereading them, they make me cringe a bit. But I still look at them fondly, because I liked this version of myself that cared strongly about things and devised weird and quirky plans to express my opinions. Let’s take a look at a sampling of my efforts:


This one took an anti-consumerism and anti-advertising angle and, in particular, the inanity of paying a company money for the right to advertise on your body. It’s interesting that I picked $59 as the upper-limit for ridiculous prices to pay for a logo graphic T-shirt.


Here was a flyer that took a feminist tack, albeit with some sloppy, inelegant writing (if you’re going to sound cavalier about eating disorders, then your writing better be coruscating). I believe I was floating the theory that teen clothing retailers intentionally making clothing sizes inconsistent to mess with girls’ body image and sense of self-esteem, which is ultimately beneficial for Abercrombie & Fitch and other image-based retailers—a theory that, as far as I know, has no evidence behind it, but kind of plausible, right? Also, I’m not sure where I saw “Independent Grrl” booty shorts, but I think it’d be hilarious to own a pair.


So basically, at some point, I thought, “You know how to get the message out in a way that resonates with my generation? Get some John fuckin’ Keats up in this shit!” This is proof that, had I majored in English, I would’ve been the most obnoxious person ever. But still, the last line is the beginning of a burn that could’ve been decent with a bit more workshopping.


1By “some,” I mean “I.” But it is a handy way of looking at the teen mall clothing retailer landscape, right? Aéropostale is the budget choice; American Eagle is moderately priced and of moderate quality; and Abercrombie & Fitch is the highest tier. (I don’t mean this as a dig, by the way. One of my favorite T-shirts is from Aéropostale—a gift from a family friend—despite my having graduated middle school. But it's a really comfortable shirt and I love it so there.)

2That’s probably a little too mean.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Dove's hypocritical campaign for its “Go Sleeveless” deodorant creates insecurites

This post originally appeared on my old Joe Dellosa on Advertising blog.

► Dove is trying to invent a new, fake insecurity for women (unattractive underarms?) in order to shill its new Go Sleeveless Deodorant, completely blowing whatever credibility it had as a trustworthy brand that cares about the self-esteem of young women.

Last month, Dove (the beauty brand owned by Unilever, not the chocolate brand owned by Mars) made a stir with its Dove Go Sleeveless Deodorant. The stir was not a positive one.

The deodorant—whose name is officially stylized as “Dove go sleeveless Deodorant,” with lowercase letters to emphasize casualness of going sleeveless or something—purports to beautify women’s underarms. In addition to its duties reducing underarm odor, Dove promises that Go Sleeveless will provide women with softer, smoother, and more attractive underarms in just five days.

According to a Dove press release dated April 4, Go Sleeveless was inspired by a 2010 study conducted by Unilever with market research firms Omnibus and TNS that supposedly found that 93 percent of women think their underarms are unattractive. Dove to the rescue, right?

Well, no. Many in the media quickly (and appropriately) called shenanigans on Dove’s new deodorant and its associated marketing campaign: Slate called it yet another instance in a long line of marketing efforts designed to foment fake insecurities in women and profit off selling them a cure. American Public Media’s Marketplace did a couple of person-on-the-street interviews with women who expressed no pre-existing concerns about their underarms.

And Stephen Colbert, who’s one of the media’s most astute advertising critics, had the definitive takedown of Dove during the April 13 episode of The Colbert Report. Colbert said “women have now learned that their armpits are hideous” with Unilever’s help and called the Dove’s new deodorant a “breakthrough shame-o-vation.”



Their points are all well-taken, and this should be pretty embarrassing for Dove. After all, even if we give Dove the benefit of the doubt and say that there are probably some women who do feel concerned about the appearance of their underarms, it's audacious for Dove to present its product as a solution to some sort of universal problem affecting virtually every American woman.

What hasn’t been mentioned quite as often is why this should be very embarrassing for Dove: with this advertising campaign—a campaign predicated on shamelessly fabricating a fictitious anxiety and foisting it upon women—Dove has completely blown its brand identity as the beauty brand that cares about the self-esteem and emotional well-being of young women. Oops.

 Cam-pain for real beauty

The last time a Dove campaign got any real attention was its much-lauded and award-winning Campaign for Real Beauty, launched in 2004. In the campaign, Dove criticized our culture’s perception of beauty as unrealistic and damaging to young girls with smartprovocative ads showing the artificiality of the beauty industry.

Can't see the ad? Click here to watch it on YouTube.


In other ads, Dove hired models more representative of average women, specifically eschewing thinner, perfectly airbrushed models. (Dove later got criticized when it turned out those models' photos were retouched, just like any other model's photos.)


But even without word of the entirely-unsurprising Photoshop job, it’s easy to see why Dove launching a Campaign for Real Beauty is at least a little hypocritical. Dove, after all, is still a beauty brand, and ultimately, its goal is to sell girls and women products that will make them prettier. And that just doesn’t jibe with a “feel good about the body you have” message—because, in essence, Dove is encouraging girls to feel good enough about themselves that they don’t need to buy all those products from Dove’s competitors, but not good enough that they can forego Dove products.

Don’t get me wrong—as an advertising cynic who takes an ardently feminist approach to advertising to and about women, I really like the general spirit of the campaign. But it’s entirely insincere for a beauty company to criticize the beauty industry while pretending it’s not a part of the problem. Would we give any credence to McDonald’s running ads on childhood obesity if they didn’t acknowledge the existence of Happy Meals?

And that’s the problem with the Campaign for Real Beauty—it’s co-opting a message of positive body image for the purpose of selling products that rely on girls and women feeling that their bodies are imperfect. To put it in starker terms, it’s commodifying girls’ self-esteem by turning it into just another marketing opportunity, and that’s particularly messed up. It’s one thing, after all, to be upfront and tell girls they’re ugly and that they should buy your product; it’s quite another to pretend to be empowering and supportive while passive-aggressively reminding girls that this great new Dove cream can really help them look great.

A couple of other criticisms of Dove’s campaign: There’s the implicit message that some women are more “real” than others, and that attractive or thin women don’t count as real. I’m pretty sure pitting groups of women against each other isn’t the most productive way to go about the whole empowerment thing.

Most damningly, there’s the stubborn little fact that Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also owns the Axe brand, which has no problem celebrating supposedly “fake” beauty in its ads. This was most ably demonstrated in Rye Clifton’s remarkable mash-up between a Dove Campaign for Real Beauty ad and various Axe ads.

Can't see the video? Click here to watch it on YouTube.


Lucky for Dove, those criticisms mostly didn’t stick, and the Campaign for Real Beauty is generally regarded as a major success for Dove. Its brand image as an empowering, pro-girl image is one Dove both values and actively cultivates—it has a “Dove Movement for Self-Esteem” website and brags about its Dove Self-Esteem Fund, which supports organizations like the Girl Scouts and Girls Inc.

In fact, as recently as April 4, Dove proudly tweeted that “[e]ach time you buy @Dove, you help us and our partners provide inspiring self-esteem programs to girls”—self-esteem that couldn’t possibly be belied by a tweet calling Dove Go Sleeveless Deodorant a “must have accessory” if girls are considering going sleeveless.

 Poll dancing

So this brings us back to Dove’s new deodorant. Here’s the marketing challenge facing Dove: How do you create a fake insecurity, push it onto women, and sell them a product that will fix that insecurity, all without looking like complete hypocrites after all that Campaign for Real Beauty stuff?

The answer lies in that press release, which repeatedly notes the results of Dove’s supposed survey: “Perceptions of unattractive underarms have women shunning sleeveless attire,” the headline screams. According to the study, “almost all women feel their underarms are unattractive”—the exact figure being “93 percent,” as mentioned later in the press release.

Remember, press releases are nothing more than marketing departments’ attempts to get the attention of news outlets to do a story on their products, framed the way the marketing department would like. It may be too much to hope that a press release is simply reprinted verbatim (although, sadly, that does happen a lot), but a slyly-written release can nudge a reporter into unwittingly writing a puff piece for a product.

So why does Dove want to emphasize the results of its market research so badly? (You don't see Mountain Dew putting out press releases stating that “90 percent of men think that Baja Blast is the most extreme flavor” when they roll out a new flavor.) Because that’s the way it can get out of looking like a bunch of self-esteem-crushing hypocrites. By pretending that Dove Go Sleeveless Deodorant is merely addressing a well-established problem rather than inventing one, Dove gets to shrug off criticism by saying, “Hey, we’re just responding to women’s needs.”

And it kind of worked. In a March 30 Wall Street Journal article, the “93 percent” statistic is repeated uncritically:

Dove Ultimate Go Sleeveless, which hits U.S. stores this week, claims its formula of specialized moisturizers will give women better-looking underarms in five days. It was inspired by Unilever PLC research that found 93% of women consider their armpits unattractive.

To its credit, the Wall Street Journal does cite the company as the source of the finding, and three paragraphs of the story are used to explain that being seen as fabricating a need is a risky strategy. But the reporting does, without question, take the company’s word that the research inspired the product, rather than raise the possibility that this purported “research” could just be another component of the marketing campaign.

On the other hand, WNBC, the NBC affiliate in New York City, just went ahead and handed Dove free ad time. During WNBC’s LX New York (which is admittedly more an entertainment and lifestyle show but is still hosted by what appear to be journalists), the host conducted an interview with Dove spokeswoman and Gossip Girl star Jessica Szohr about the deodorant. And by “interview,” I mean “hackish shill-session.”

Can't see the video? Click here to watch it on YouTube.


Consider this example of sparkling journalism from the clip above:

WNBC Host: A lot of women, apparently 93 percent of them who responded—

Szohr: Feel uncomfortable.

WNBC Host: Yeah!

Szohr: Yeah.

WNBC Host: Which I was kind of surprised by.

Szohr: Yeah. And this product basically, if you—when you use it, within five days, you get softer, smoother underarms. So that way, when you use halter tops, or tank tops, or dresses that show that area, you can feel comfortable and not self-conscious.

WNBC Host: So if people join in this campaign, they get to go shopping with you, maybe?

The press release offered by Dove doesn’t offer too much in terms of details about the survey itself; this is the entirety of the information about the survey:

Through a Unilever, Omnibus and TNS Research International the go sleeveless: Uncovering Underarms. An online, anonymous survey was taken by 534 women, ages 18-64 to gather insights on understanding the level of anxiety women feel about the appearance of their underarms.

And that’s not helpful. It’s journalistically unsound to cite poll results in news stories without seeing the complete questionnaire and results. Trusting a company to interpret results in an unbiased matter is foolish, and trusting a company’s poll as legitimate without at least giving it a once-over is just silly. This is doubly true when a poll itself is used as a cornerstone in an actual marketing campaign.

Plus, it’s unclear as to whether or not this poll is statistically valid. Dove wrote its press release suggesting some of its results can be generalized to the population (“93 percent of women think their underarms are unattractive,” Dove writes, and not 93 percent of women surveyed), but other statistics use the qualification (“Over half … of the women in the study”; “1 in 3 of the women studied”). The online nature of the survey raises more questions about the poll’s validity, too—the validity of online polls is often questioned due to issues with random sampling and self-selection bias.

So, I emailed Unilever and a media contact at Edelman (Unilever’s PR firm) and asked for the full questionnaire, with the exact wording and order of the questions, as well as the full results. I also asked very specific questions about the poll’s methodology, including if a random sample was used, how participants were recruited for the poll, and what the poll’s margin of error was.

After some friendly emails back and forth, Annette Evans of Edelman wound up emailing me this statement:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the testing methodology of the go sleeveless: Uncovering Underarms study. This study was conducted by an independent third party market research supplier, to gather insights and provide statistically sound evidence.  This online, anonymous survey was taken by 534 women aged 18-64. The survey is statistically sound and adhered to industry-recognized guidelines and the highest quality standards.

Which is basically what the press release said. I emailed back, reiterating my desire for the full questionnaire and results and repeating my questions about methodology; alas, I didn’t hear back.

To be clear, I don’t blame Evans for sending an incredibly (and, more likely than not, deliberately) unhelpful statement. She’s just doing what her client likely instructed her to do. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if I were the first person to ask for the full questionnaire and results—that would explain a lack of even a boilerplate, “sorry, we’re not releasing that” refusal.

But here’s the thing. If Dove is willing to release a part of its market research—the part that helps its marketing effort—without letting reporters see the whole picture, it makes it look like Dove is actively hiding something. And if Dove is unwilling to answer very basic questions about the poll’s methodology, it makes the whole marketing campaign—as well as Dove’s brand image—look completely bogus.

(For a detailed explanation on why I think it's so important to get the full questionnaire and full results from Dove, please click here.)

 Why this matters

With its campaign for Dove Go Sleeveless Deodorant, Dove appears to be trying to both manufacture and profit from the insecurities of its female customers. Dove is in the beauty industry, so that isn’t surprising.

It shouldn’t even be surprising that Dove is doing this after its whole Campaign for Real Beauty nonsense. A company that harshly criticizes the beauty industry while pretending that, somehow, it’s exempt from the criticism is hardly a paragon of consistency or self-awareness—and no number of donations to the Girl Scouts can change that.

What this should make abundantly clear is that “brand identity” or “brand personality” are meaningless concepts—or, at least, they should be. I don’t really get this tendency to anthropomorphize companies, but we should knock it off: by and large, companies exist to make money, and any personality they show is merely a means to that end. Nike isn’t an athletic company any more than Hallmark is a sentimental company. They’re companies. They make money. They assume whatever identity they feel best helps them make money.

And yes, this includes Dove. I don’t doubt that there are people who work for the Dove brand that care about the self-esteem and body images of young women; I would presume that many of its employees are women who have daughters. And I don’t doubt that many of its employees are earnest in their efforts to use the marketing resources of Dove to do a little good.

But we shouldn’t confuse those employees with the brand or the company. Dove makes its decisions based on what can help them sell enough body wash, deodorants, and creams to keep Unilever profitable. The Campaign for Real Beauty wouldn’t exist if Dove didn’t think it'd help Unilever make money, just as Dove Go Sleeveless Deodorant wouldn’t exist if Dove didn’t think it’d be profitable.

On one hand, I’m tempted to just shrug and chalk it up to the amorality of big business. But on the other hand, I’m pretty annoyed that Dove’s presumption that the cause of helping girls develop a healthy body image is a purchasable commodity, to be bought when it suits the brand’s marketing goals and dropped when it doesn’t.

The people at Dove who actually care about young women should be embarrassed by this campaign, and the people who actually believe that Dove cares about young women should be disabused of that notion.

And at the very least, nobody should be stressing out about their underarms that much. I mean, even before this product came out, Jessica Szohr hardly seems to be losing sleep over hers…


…so neither should you.

You can email me at jdellosa@gmail.com, or tweet me @JoeDellosa.

Monday, May 9, 2011

Unilever’s Dove uses dubious “Go Sleeveless” poll to address criticism

This post originally appeared on my old “Joe Dellosa on Advertising” blog.

► Dove, criticized for inventing an insecurity for women, is justifying its new Go Sleeveless Deodorant by pointing to a study that says 93 percent of women think their underarms are unattractive but is refusing to release the actual poll or the full results.

This is an introduction of sorts to a fuller piece about Dove, its marketing campaign for the Dove Go Sleeveless Deodorant, and the inconsistency of its "pro-self esteem" brand image. The expanded piece will appear either later today or tomorrow.

Last month, Unilever's Dove began a marketing campaign to promote its new Dove Go Sleeveless Deodorant. The TV commercials for the deodorant promised women that they could have more beautiful underarms after using the product for just five days, which prompted many in the media to accuse Dove of attempting to invent a fabricated insecurity for women -- uh-oh, unattractive underarms! -- and profit from the resulting anxiety. Here's Stephen Colbert on the April 13 episode of The Colbert Report.



That a company in the beauty industry is trying to foment negative feelings in women about their bodies is certainly no surprise, but for Dove to do it seems hypocritical. Dove, after all, actively cultivates a reputation as a supportive, empowering brand for young women -- from its Campaign for Real Beauty to its Movement for Self-Esteem.

Possibly to fend off accusations of hypocrisy, Dove emphasized repeatedly in its press release about Dove Go Sleeveless Deodorant that the deodorant is the result of market research that found that "almost all women feel their underarms are unattractive" -- 93 percent, apparently. (This statistic was repeated unquestioningly in media outlets like the Wall Street Journal and WNBC.) One can imagine Dove arguing, poll in hand, that it's not inventing a new insecurity but merely addressing a pre-existing insecurity.

Unfortunately, the press release contained very little information about the poll itself -- no mention of the exact questions asked, how the poll was conducted, or any discussion of the methodology. It's even not clear if the poll is really statistically valid.

So, I asked Dove if I could take a look at the poll myself. I wanted to see the complete questionnaire, with the exact wording and exact order of the questions, and I wanted to see the complete results. I also had specific questions about the poll's methodology, including whether a random sample was used, how participants were recruited, and what the margin of error for the poll was. After a few emails back and forth, Dove, through its PR firm, declined to let me see the complete questionnaire and results and chose not to answer my questions about methodology. Apparently, I was to take Dove's word for it.

That, needless to say, is a bad idea. If a company is willing to mention some poll results -- presumably, the results that benefit the company -- in its press releases and other marketing materials, it should be willing to release the full results, with a full questionnaire, with a full explanation of the poll's methodology. To do any less isn't just shady and dishonest; it also insults the intelligence of that company's customers and undermine that company's credibility. More importantly, reporters -- especially those who cover advertising and media -- shouldn't let companies get away with it.

What follows below is kind of a Stats 101 mini-primer as to why seeing the questionnaire -- with the exact wording, exact sequence of questions, and full results -- is so important, and why, without it, even a statistically-valid poll can be completely dishonest and manipulative. Since Dove refuses to release any of that, I can only speculate as to how it got the results it did. For all I know, Dove asked fair questions that yielded legitimate results; however, until Dove decides to be more forthcoming, we'd do well to assume the worst.

 Exact wording

Consider the most prominent statistic in the marketing campaign, the “93 percent of women think their underarms are unattractive” stat. It could be Dove just very plainly asked:

Do you think your underarms are unattractive?

A: Yes
B: No

Would 496 women out of 534 women in a supposedly representative sample say they have an active belief that their underarms are unattractive? That seems unlikely. So what if Dove actually asked this:

Do you think your underarms are attractive?

A: Yes
B: No

Only 38 women answering "yes" still seems low, but it’s a little more plausible than 496 actively affirming a belief that their underarms are unattractive. And in this case, if 496 women answered “no,” they’re not necessarily saying they think their underarms are unattractive; they just never thought of describing their underarms as particularly attractive. (It's like if someone asked me if I thought my index finger is attractive -- I'd answer "no," not because I think it's ugly, but because, as a normal index finger, it's neither attractive or unattractive.) Of course, without the original question phrasing, we just don't know.

 Full results

Now, what if the Dove poll asked the question in this manner (with hypothetical results in brackets):

How do you feel about your underarms’ appearance?

A: My underarms are always attractive. [7%]
B: Every once in a while, my underarms don’t look the best. [50%]
C: Occasionally, my underarms don’t look the best. [30%]
D: Often, my underarms don’t look the best. [10%]
E: My underarms are always unattractive. [3%]

I could imagine that, presented with these choices, only 7 percent of respondents affirming that their underarms are always attractive, with a vast majority picking less absolute choices. But if Dove wanted the statistic that 93 percent of women think their underarms are unattractive, it can just lump all the non-“always attractive” responses together -- it's a tricky interpretation of data that could be seen as technically true but is patently dishonest. Hence, the importance of full results.

 Exact sequence of questions

Finally, consider if before asking about their underarms’ appearance, respondents were asked a series of questions like these:

Have you ever noticed any bumps or pimples on your underarms?

Have you ever noticed how rough your underarms can be?

Have you ever noticed any underarm decoloration?

Do you ever experience soreness or itchiness on your underarms?

Can you recall any times when you’ve been embarrassed by your underarms?

Followed up with an innocent, “Do you think your underarms are unattractive?” Clearly, the responses would be more than a little skewed.

It’s like asking, “Do you think Senator Jones is lying about having an affair?,” “Do you agree with Senator Jones’s decision to defund the troops, possibly leaving them without body armor?,” and “Do you think Senator Jones’s health care vote was the result of bribery, as some have suggested?”—and then asking, “Do you approve or disapprove of the job Senator Jones is doing?”

 In closing (for now)

I'll have much more on this in a fuller blog post about Dove, including an explanation of the inherent inconsistency of Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty and why I believe its campaign for its Go Sleeveless Deodorant is embarrassingly hypocritical. (I'm holding off posting that in part to give time for Dove to provide a statement and, hopefully, the full poll; a rep at Dove's PR firm said they'd have something by today.)

In the meantime, it's important to note that Dove is far from the only company to conduct dubious polls, cite the results in its marketing materials, and then balk that the notion of releasing the full questionnaire and results.

For instance, last year, FedEx attempted to smear UPS with its "Brown Bailout" campaign, in which FedEx falsely accused UPS of asking for a government bailout. FedEx cited polls on its website and in its press releases claiming public support for FedEx's position, and FedEx director of corporate communication Maury Lane mentioned polls when he was interviewed about the issue. (He did so during his interview with me, too.)

So I asked to see the full questionnaire and results. Lane told me that I would have to get it from FedEx's pollster, Public Opinion Strategies. Public Opinion Strategies said that they weren't authorized to release that information, and only FedEx could release it. When I emailed and left messages with Lane relaying what the pollster told me, Lane stopped returning my calls and emails.

This may be obvious, but it's a good idea to be suspicious of any poll a company conducts and then cites in marketing materials. Companies don't do polls because they're just so darn curious about people; they do polls because it helps them somehow -- maybe to have snappy soundbites in interviews, or to make press releases sound more authoritative, or, in what I believe is Dove's case, to attempt to preemptively fend off criticism.

Regardless, whenever companies offer poll results in a marketing campaign, customers and (especially) journalists should get into the habit of automatically asking for the full questionnaire and the full results. And if a company refuses to do so, we should get into the habit of telling them that they are being dishonest and very likely lying by omission.

There's only one reason a company would feel comfortable releasing only some but not all of a poll's results: they are hiding something. That's not breaking news, but it's good to remember.

You can email me at jdellosa@gmail.com, or tweet me @JoeDellosa.