But this day in age, when you pat someone on the back, someone else will slap them in the face. And not always undeservedly. Many folks saw these ads and were bothered that people were labeling Dove a socially responsible company when it was thought that they were still testing on animals. But were they?
I've included a response to the question from Unilever US who runs Dove below:
"This is in response to your inquiry regarding our policy on animal
testing. Unilever understands and shares your concern about this most
important and complex matter. We are committed to the elimination of
animal testing for our business and recently we have made significant
progress towards meeting this challenge.
Our position has historically been that we do not test any finished home
or personal care product on animals, except where required by government
regulation. However, as part of our ongoing commitment to eliminate
animal testing, we recently reviewed these specific government
regulations against the products we manufacture and market. During this
review it became clear to us, that the only product category that
required testing was oral care. However, as you may have heard,
Unilever no longer manufactures oral care products. This means that we
can now definitively state that Unilever does not test home or personal
care products, including toothpaste, on animals."
What a strange, uh... answer?The long and short of it is "Yes," they do test on animals. Did you miss the clue? The company is very careful to say that do not test "finished" products on animals. Well, why would they? If it's finished I guess they've already figured out it won't burn your retinas out. As for the oral products, I guess it's a good thing they don't make toothpaste anymore or they'd be as screwed as the rabbits.
Many people were offended that the company would launch a campaign so definitively feminist at the same time as they were producing the men's fragrance "Axe." In the "Axe" cologne commercials a man is generally attacked at a store or in a parking lot by a pack of near-rabid women whose insatiable blood-lust can only be quenched by smelling the five dollar, Walmart-bought stink on his neck.
(It comes in a pump for crying out loud.)
But does any of this take away from the company's honest attempt to address a growing problem with body-issues and anxiety? Does it make it any less brave in a commercial landscape where girls in bikinis are used to sell cars and Kiera Knightley gets nominated for awards instead of checked into a clinic? Is the life of an animal more important than a girl's self esteem?
In the nineties, Levi's made a decision to relocate 2 percent of its manufacturing to the U.S. because it was good American finances and would be produced in a more organic, less chemical saturated way. But Levi's tried to keep it a secret because they feared it would make their customers question the other 98 percent of it's products. To what extent were they onto something?
Has Dove's decision to take a step toward socially responsible advertising opened up the business to new criticism? Could this bold new branding actually hurt Dove? I think it's great when the populous questions the powers that be. I just hope we keep in mind that even though there are bad guys, there are also worse guys. Let's pick on them first and then constructively help the ones who are at least trying to change.
