First Dawn, now Pepsi. Something interesting is happening with brands out to do good and brands like BP who are (especially now) labelled with doing harm. Never before has one brand come to rescue a situation created by another brand. Rebellious brands like Apple and Virgin have always snubbed their noses at the establishment and found new and better ways to champion customers. But this is different and it’s worth noting.

For those of you who have spent the last six months under a log, ‘Refresh’ is the new big social campaign from Pepsi whereby they diverted their leviathan Super Bowl ad budget to crowd-source CSR funding initiatives. Now, Pepsi is spending a month of their campaign and $1.3m of their ‘Refresh’ budget to fund projects that help the disaster in the Gulf.

So why is this campaign different? Instead of championing a customer issue, or even taking on a social issue to do with the beverage market, Pepsi have come to the rescue of a disaster caused by another company/brand. The Gulf disaster is different than other disasters as it is so closely associated with BP similar to the Exxon Valdez spill or Union Carbide’s Bhopal. Therefore, there is no avoiding the brand-association.

There are many ways to set a civil strategy for a brand. One way is to analyse the issues within your own industry. Dove’s insight was that the beauty industry does harm to women’s self-esteem. Citi focused on the financial industry’s harmful prioritisation on money above all else with their ‘Live Richly’ campaign.

The Pepsi campaign is the first that I have seen where a brand looks outside its own industry to help solve problems associated with another industry. This strategy not only helps draw attention to brand, it reduces any risk of hypocrisy that can result from an activist approach (see previous Dove post). Pepsi can nicely sidestep any such charge by staying out of the issues that surround their industry (like water usage, obesity and worker rights) and give responsibility to their customers by crowd-sourcing the projects that will make the campaign work.

Amnesty International adopts a similar risk reduction strategy with causes and countries: ensuring that local chapters are not harassed by requiring them to only campaign about issues in other countries. Pepsi skilfully demonstrates how brands can enter into more social and civil discussions by concentrating on issues outside their own industry.  Of course, this strategy cannot divert attention from the harm present in any native industry, but it appears to be a less risky approach for raising civil issues in this particular case.

Related:
+ Our previous article on Pepsi Refresh

Dove began the ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’ website as a microsite offshoot to the main Dove site. Creating a microsite is a familiar practice for campaigns. The effort has continued through community workshops and information packs for schools and appears to be going strong. Now Dove has folded the microsite into the main Dove site, giving strong prominence on the home page and throughout the site.

A quick internet search reveals that the social impact of advertising is perceived largely in negative terms. Now that more brands are building socially-progressive (civil) platforms, we need to consider ways to measure the positive social impact of specific brand communications.

The recent call for a ban on airbrushing in ads by the Liberal Democrats (see previous post) prompts a need to measure not just public opinion on social issues that are at the heart of a particular civil brand, but to measure the positive impact of brand communications on political policy.

At Brandinstinct we feel that Dove’s long-running Campaign for Real Beauty, which promotes self esteem in women, helped create the environment for political action and helped the Liberal Democrats call for the ban.

Defining more civil brand platforms is not just a way to engage people in wider society, it is a way to influence politicians on values and ideas with the benefit of creating social change. Being involved in social change in this way opens up new opportunities for brand differentiation.

Measurement tools will need to evolve to include political policy shifts. If these new measures are adopted by the most active civil brands, we can capture the impact of civil branding on social progress via political-influence.

In a bold move, the Liberal Democrat party has called for a ban on airbrushing models used in advertising to young women. Front Bencher, Ms Swinson said young girls in particular were under increasing pressure due to “completely unattainable images that no-one can live up to in real life”.

“The focus on women’s appearance has got out of hand – no-one really has perfect skin, perfect hair and a perfect figure, but women and young girls increasingly feel that nothing less than perfect will do, Liberal Democrats believe in the freedom of companies to advertise but we also believe in the freedom of young people to develop their self-esteem and to be as comfortable as possible with their bodies. They shouldn’t constantly feel the need to measure up to a very narrow range of digitally manipulated shapes and sizes.”

Swinson singled out Olay ads that featured model Twiggy and Campari ads that featured Jessica Alba below as being  prime offenders for the liberal use of airbrushing to promote unrealistic body images to women.

Campari Jessica Alba before and after airbrushing

While this kind of move has been on the cards for a long time, we feel it is likely that Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty played a significant role in bringing the issue to the surface. Dove certainly did not invent the idea that the focus on women’s appearance has gotten out of hand. But they did launch a global campaign, sustained over years, that emphasised the issue in an approachable way.

Dove Raising awareness of airbrushing

While one can argue that there is more work to do in order to get more truth into advertising, this ban might prompt a generalised move toward more authentic approaches to communication.

Trying to create perfect images has been around since the dawn of advertising and fulfils the art director’s own pursuit of the ideal aesthetic, so it is hard to move away from this pattern. But this ban may create a shift in the game: a new rule. If we as marketers cannot create images of perfection, then this avenue will be closed and we will need to seek out other forms of creating compelling communications.

The ban is only a suggestion at the moment and only aimed at advertising to young people. But it does not take much consideration to see how likely it is that the ban will become reality and will be applied across all advertising in the future. How will we marketers react to this change?

Read the full article on BBC.

The paper that outlines our civil branding effort and explains a technique for creating more civil brands is now ready for download. Inside, you will find the following:

[1] Synopsis of the civil branding idea and its importance to marketers and society.
[2] Step-by-step process for creating more differentiated, more civil brands.
[3] Case studies from Citibank, Dove, Benetton, HSBC and others.

+ Download here

The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty began in 2004 and has created an unforeseen level of interest and sales by playing on our homogeneous and often superficial notions of beauty. Since launch, Dove has been active in advertising, with a website that promotes self esteem in young women, research into body image, the Dove ‘Self Esteem Fund‘ and the hugely effective viral movies like ‘Evolution‘.

The Dove Evolution video is rumoured to have received more eyeballs than a Super Bowl ad so it was only logical to follow up this massively successful viral with another. The sequel, named ‘Onslaught’, is a montage of clips depicting the ridiculous and harmful nature of beauty industry narratives that are broadcast to young women.

Greenpeace responded with a spoof video of their own depicting rain forest depletion resulting from the supply of Palm Oil for Dove products. Independent film maker Rye Clifton also responded with his video mash up of AXE spots that makes public the connection between the Dove and AXE brands under Unilever ownership.

Original Dove ‘Onslaught’ video

Greenpeace parody

AXE mash up from director Rye Clifton

Dissent and controversy are the main themes of an activist approach to political and social change. The original ‘Onslaught’ video certainly adopts an activist approach clearly aimed at separating Dove from ‘the rest’ of the (overtly image conscious) beauty industry.  The parody responses are clearly intended to depict Dove as hypocritical on two fronts.

Taking an activist approach seems to be a difficult position for brands to maintain. Benetton, the Italian clothing retailer, found themselves in the same difficult territory back in the late 1990s. Their approach to advertising began as poking fun at at hypocrisy using images of race, religion and sexuality. But the approach evolved into a more serious and directed form of criticism on several more issues like capital punishment, refugees and the AIDS epidemic.

The Campaign for Real Beauty has made a tremendous impact on the social issues raised and on the business at Unilever, so it is unlikely that these responses will make much of a difference toward the overall positioning. But it does raise some interesting questions like:

1. Are activist approaches a slippery slope?

2. Is an activist position a credible role for any brand?

3. Do we need to take an activist approach in order to raise important social issues?

There are examples of brands that have adopted an activist position successfully. However, the examples that come to mind like the Body Shop and the Co-op Bank have an ethical promise at the very heart of their company. Ultimately, Dove has a purely functional benefit (¼ moisturising cream) as its core proposition and is making a bold transition into a deeper sphere of meaning. I believe they are real leaders in the promotion of important ideas and I am sure management at Dove and Unilever will want to continue along this path in the future.