Fair and Lovely
Watch this, puke, and then come back to read the rest of this post.
Here’s Andrew Leonard, writing in Salon (watch the ad, the article is worth it) about the debate between C.K.Prahlad (”Bottom of the pyramid” evangelist) and Aneel Karnani (”Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage”) . In the case of (ugh) Fair and Lovely, Prahlad thinks it gives the young woman sweeper a feeling of being empowered. Karnani disagrees, calling it (rightly) no kind of empowerment at all. Leonard writes:
The television and magazine advertisements (Karnani) describes would not last a nanosecond in Western markets, if any advertising director was suicidal enough to run them. They show depressed dark-skinned women getting progressively more light-skinned, and in the process, getting good jobs, landing boyfriends and achieving happiness.Leonard wonders whether the example of this product alone is enough to counter Prahlad’s contention that the poor are an untapped market, etc. I’m still staring at the last paragraph in the article, though:
But there’s one thing that doesn’t get mentioned in either of Karnani’s papers or Prahalad’s rebuttal, and it’s an odd omission. Prahalad serves on the Board of Directors of HLL. Karnani’s thorough-going attack on the skin cream has to be read, in part, as a direct attack on Prahalad personally, for condoning, at some level, a marketing campaign based on pushing the message that happiness, beauty and success are dependent on having skin that is light, instead of dark.Ooooo.
Tut tut…Andrew Leonard speaketh through the place where the sun don’t shine.
Such a commercial wouldn’t last a NANO-SECOND in western markets?
Last time I checked, ALL newspapers here carry at least a dozen ads every day - for tanning salons, breast augmentation, chin-tuck, face-lift, teeth-work (”a new, confident you in 8 weeks!”) and God knows what else the Board of Plastic Surgeons endorses and approves.
“Fair & Lovely” is just as ridiculous (and offensive) as all the other “new you” crap being peddled to the morons here in the States.
(Congrats on the ‘bloggies nomination!)
Comment by km — February 14, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
It’s ridiculous that CK Prahlad is finding excuses for a product like Fair and Lovely! While I agree it’s one personal choice to buy or not, I hate the way advertising agencies have systematically exploited the prejudices that exist in Indian society. And do we really need this product as a “role model.” I have to admit that I found Prahlad’s “Bottom of the Pyramid” concept (and some of the case studies in his book) interesting but the endorsement of this product is sad and ridiculous.
Comment by Sash — February 14, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
I don’t think Prahlad’s example had anything to do with fairness. He says this in as many words:
“I know that you think ‘Fair and Lovely’ is a bad idea. This is an ideological stance.”
Come to think of it, the millions of poor women who are exposed to the Sun deserve better skin care, not to enhance fairness but to keep their skin soft. Just like the “privileged” women can. Prahlad is merely lauding the companies for recognizing the demand pull from people who have been dismissed as non-consumers.
As a matter of fact many so called middle class people would not have been able to afford many of the cosmetic products had they been available only in US sized packs. Imagine the lowest size pack is a litre of shampoo and it costs 500 bucks.
Comment by Barbarindian — February 15, 2007 @ 1:20 am
Hmm. I’m not a fan of F&L, but I’m not sure in this case, its not any different from the hundreds of beauty products marketed to women both in India and in developed markets. Seems like if we attack F&L, we should attack them all.
Second, I agree with Aneel Karnani in that there’s no need to canonize Unilever. But there’s no need to demonize the firm either. Profit making firms will be amoral and they should be doing their business honestly and in full compliance with the law in letter and spirit. Other issues of whether companies should be marketing such socially dangerous products start getting into paternalism and there’s a whole debate on that as we well know.
That said, I wish Unilever would run better (read: less pukeworthy) ads for F&L. But they also do the whole Dove self-esteem bit!!!
Comment by Neela — February 15, 2007 @ 2:43 am
Oh I forgot a caveat: I used to work for Unilever. I also was on the marketing side and have business training, so perhaps my comments should be seen in that light.
n!
Comment by Neela — February 15, 2007 @ 2:44 am
I disagree with the won’t-work-in-the-West bit. Vanity is not a geographic issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200703/postrel-beauty?ca=buhxGSajR%2BPnatiIH5CMmEP2PS%2FCrnyqA07r2wCqyyU%3D
Comment by Eroteme — February 15, 2007 @ 8:26 am
geez, that freaking video!
Comment by PolkaStripes-ZebraDots — February 21, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
damn, what a video!
Comment by PolkaStripes-ZebraDots — February 21, 2007 @ 9:14 pm