When Wittgenstein proposed that ‘the message is the receiver’, he meant that no matter what the speaker says, the meaning can only ever be interpreted and understood in the listener.This idea implies that:

[a] The listener comes complete with their own context and preconceived notions and

[b] these preconceived notions work to create interference for the speaker’s message and result in a different message being understood if the speaker and listener’s contexts vary. Quite often, we need to rally a message back and forth in order to have the speaker’s meaning really understood. This is never more true when two different people or groups with different backgrounds, goals and experiences are trying to communicate.

We’re all familiar with the shift from broadcast to dialogue but what does it mean in action? Let’s take an example.

We need to pick on somebody, so while Procter and Gamble has done some interesting and positive civil branding actions with the Tampax (see previous post), let’s use their latest drama regarding airbrushing model Twiggy for their Olay brand so we can work with a practical example.

The Guardian reported:

P&G said that there would “always be differences between uncomplimentary paparazzi shots and professional beauty photographs”. The company argued that an article in a national newspaper, which featured Twiggy “off-duty” in the Olay ad, may have prompted the complaints.

P&G added that it was “routine practice to use post-production techniques to correct for lighting and other minor photographic deficiencies before publishing the final shots as part of an advertising campaign”.

The company said that there had been some “minor retouching” around Twiggy’s eyes, which was inconsistent with its own policies; this had already prompted it to withdraw the original ad and replace with one in which there was no post-production work around the eyes.

There are certainly two different conversations going on between the speaker (P&G) and the listener (media, normal people). Groups are upset that Twiggy is being made to appear younger than she is when endorsing a product. In their statements, P&G explains their ideas on policy, their view of the situation and technical details of a shoot.

The listener wanted P&G to discuss the concern of making older women appear younger than they are in order to sell product. In not responding to directly to their concern, the listener feels ignored and will try to reengage P&G in other ways, likely expressing frustration.

It’s just like an argument with a friend where you are trying to get your story across but the other party is not up for listening.

This situation is a lost opportunity for P&G to talk about the companies views on authenticity, airbrushing and ageism. These views are important to many of P&G’s customers as Unilever has proved with Dove.

Here are five rules that we’ve developed over the years to help when responding to this kind of situation:

1. Focus on the response. Listen to the responder and take the conversation to their topic. Don’t try to change the topic or shut the conversation down prematurely.
2. Use their topic as a platform to speak about your ideas on their concerns. P&G could have used this situation to discuss their ideas on celebrity image in a modern society, how it is changing, issues of ageism or any other important topic to P&G.
3. Take the conversation to its conclusion. Each participant will want to direct the conversation down their own path. Make room for each other’s ideas and you will have more air time to talk about your own thoughts on the subject and have your ideas understood.
4. Be open and be true. You need to be open in order to keep the conversation going, but you also need to be true to your own ideas and values. If opinions really differ, then you need to agree to disagree, but in our experience, this is very rarely the case.
5. Take action. These kinds of conversations often raise new opportunities. Be quick to capitalise on them to secure your position and reinforce your words with deeds.

Of course, Olay/P&G is not alone. Marketers are trained in strategy that does not include two-way participation, so learning the ropes is difficult. When handling these situations, marketers often take on a defensive or debate-like position. While it takes effort and bravery, entering into the listener’s conversation opens up entirely new areas of opportunity for a brand and can turn out to be moments of real innovation.

Further reading:
Lib Dems call to ban airbrushing
Could Tampax be another Dove?

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.