Marketing for Women

After reading the article Social Lubricant: How a Marketing Campaign Became the Catalyst for a Societal Debate, by Rob Walker, I wasn't completely sure what his point was; it was one of those articles that makes more sense after a second look.

In 2005, a new marketing campaign for Dove products came out and created a "minor sensation" with its Campaign for Real Beauty. The ads featured women that "are not the ultra-thin fashion-model types common to advertising," also they were in their underwear. I remembered those ads, but I never knew they created such a buzz. The "Dove Girls", as they were called, were on the cover of People magazine and also guests on the Today show. It is uncommon for an advertisement to initiate so much reaction in people, but Walker argues that it did, right off the bat, with his title.

Walker says, "the more intriguing fact that it is a marketing campaign--not a political figure, or a major news organization, or even a film--that 'opened a dialogue'." At this point in the second paragraph, I was intrigued, but as I read on, a point really didn't jump out at me. Rather, it seemed like I was just reading statistics and facts put together. More towards the end I can clearly tell that Walker agrees with the ads all around message, which he translates as, "enough counting carbs, enough lectures from Dr. Phil, enough pressure to learn to dress well enough for the Queer Eye crew and achieve Martha-like aesthetic perfection in bathroom decor."

All that from seeing some so called 'average' women in the underwear hawking beauty and bath products? It seems like a stretch, but I don't doubt that Walker's audience of The New York Times readers thought so. His piece is a commonality in that publication and it seems as though this would've been received well. I mean, I can't imagine anyone arguing with advice to relax about their appearance. Society has only grown more vain since 2005 when this article was published and those ads still run, so what does that mean?