Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with Unilever or associated brands. These are just my thoughts on a heated debate.
Sometimes, it’s hard to get people to talk about selling to the Base of the Pyramid and looking to the emerging markets as a source of revenue. I think the latest BoP debate between CK and Aneel Karnani is fascinating.
For the uninitiated… Unilever is a large company. A very, large company.
They produce fast moving consumer goods across multiple markets.
The same company that makes THIS:
Also makes THIS:
The first campaign is the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. It emphasizes that women are naturally beautiful and their skin car products bring this beauty outward. Thus, women are beautiful when they age (yielding a line of products called pro-age). I particularly think this little video snippet is interesting, and I think has made the rounds on Youtube.
The point to take away from the Campaign for Real Beauty is that Dove is a progressive brand, and they want to make women feel good about themselves (and sell more product).
Now, let’s look at the emerging markets, such as South East Asia. The product that Unilever offers in this market is known as Fair & Lovely (second campaign shown above). It is a skin lightening cream that has received lots of fire lately, from BoP critics. (CK mentions Fair and Lovely in previous case studies as an example of BoP merit). Whereas proponents argue that the whitening cream helps its consumers portray a positive image, critics posit that Fair & Lovely engenders race bias (In places like India, fair skin is deemed more attractive. See this set of interesting facts from another blogger). As he also points out, India’s “fairness industry” accounts for 60% of skincare sales and $140 M in revenues.
Check out the commercials from Fair and Lovely that run in India.
The question then becomes how can a company that is so progressive in their marketing campaign towards the developed world… offer products that are essentially taking advantage of cultural race bias?
There are a few reasons. First of all, I want to start out by saying that I do NOT believe that Fair and Lovely is the best example of a BoP product that successfully *improves* the situation for people. In fact, the question whether Unilever sells F&L to these markets is of complete irrelevance– that’s an ideological question. Companies have been peddling their useless diet products in the United States and developed world for several decades now, and no one seems to be up in arms to stop them.
Unilever has a set of corporate values that influence their managers to make decisions about what product lines to sell. These decisions are still largely based on cost-benefit analyses and ROI methodology. (And why not? That’s how managers are incented). Social values differ from region to region, and our social consciousness is evolving here in the developed world in unprecedented ways (So much so that I sometimes think that Dean Cornish’s altruism wildcard might just come true).
The fact that Unilever is serving BoP markets with the access to products– and more importantly EDUCATION and means to a social ladder by providing social entrepreneurs in villages the chance to be an intermediary (wholesaler?) of products is fantastic. The net social impact of Unilever paving the way for other organizations to enter and offer catered services is positive. Eventually, products like F&L won’t be sold in India and many other countries. But until then, I am pleased that profits from the purchase of this brand will help invigor thought into more productive ways to serve humanity.
Great post man. I think its interesting that both brands are owned by the same parent company despite having such different marketing methods.
I think you’re right in the sense that the brand managers at these companies are really looking at the ROI involved rather than any sense of morality or ethics regarding their corporate image.
Just as the phrase “sex sells” is used, now we are seeing “fair sells” in India and “reality sells” in the US.
As consumers, we should just be aware that no matter what they may say or do, these companies don’t really care how we feel about ourselves. They only care about whether we feel like buying their products.
It’s interesting though.. We say “as consumers”… but do you ever think about the employees of Unilever? They are consumers too… Their families and friends are consumers of packaged cosmetic goods. They have a social human responsibility to create meaningful product platforms/services/experiences.
Another thing that’s kinda funny… We chastise Unilever for selling a skin lightening lotion to its customers, but tanning salons in the United States are perfectly admissible. Why is that?
One more thing. Doing some research and talking to a friend, I found out that Unilever acquired the company that used to make Fair and Lovely. Since the F&L brand is a cash cow, they have kept it in operation.