<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Laughlin Out Loud / Blog &#187; Fashion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.laughlin.com/tag/fashion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.laughlin.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:28:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Dove&#8217;s real beauties are unreal. So is the outrage. Shut up and finish your Whopper.</title>
		<link>http://blog.laughlin.com/2008/05/22/doves-real-beauties-are-unreal-so-is-the-outrage-shut-up-and-finish-your-whopper/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=doves-real-beauties-are-unreal-so-is-the-outrage-shut-up-and-finish-your-whopper</link>
		<comments>http://blog.laughlin.com/2008/05/22/doves-real-beauties-are-unreal-so-is-the-outrage-shut-up-and-finish-your-whopper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 17:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve Laughlin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Branding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.laughlin.com/?p=5</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For years marketers have been criticized for creating unreal expectations for female<br />
beauty. Well, marketers don&#8217;t lead culture, they follow it. Marketers just give us what<br />
we want. We start young. Barbie dolls teach our girls that it&#8217;s ideal to be stacked and<br />
skinny. Movie producers cast only size zero women under twenty five years old. Ok, a<br />
few older, more solid roles exist, but Kathy Bates gets those parts.</p>
<p>Then Dove comes along and reminds us that real women, those a little rounder and<br />
softer than the under-fed icons of the industry, are what is really beautiful.</p>
<p>The usual media circus breaks out calling our attention to the right-sizing of our beauty<br />
standards. Models around the world can take a break from saltines and celery for a<br />
deep dish pizza or two, perhaps washed down with beer. A consensus formed around<br />
the notion that it&#8217;s about time we celebrate what we&#8217;ve really become: pudgy.<br />
Reubenesque beauty is back.</p>
<p>Then the disclosure that perhaps these more robust models were re-touched. Outrage<br />
is unleashed in the direction of the very marketers we were celebrating. How dare they<br />
be so hypocritical as to suggest something is real and then enhance it with retouching.<br />
Particularly after pitching the shots as un-retouched. The controversy quickly died down<br />
when Dove denied any re-touching. End of story. It&#8217;s seems as our waistbands expand<br />
our collective attention span recedes.</p>
<p>Welcome to the new world of marketing. It&#8217;s always been our objective to get noticed.<br />
Now with the web 2.0 world of immediate feedback, controversy is inevitable. Believe it<br />
or not, there were blogs that chastised Dove for suggesting its OK for women to be out<br />
of shape. Written by men, I might add. Bill Zwecker of CBS&#8217;s morning show in Chicago<br />
for one. Richard Roeper, the movie critic for two, who said he found the Dove<br />
advertising, &#8220;unsettling.&#8221; Big thighs didn&#8217;t sit well with Richard.</p>
<p>With time for a little reflection, it might be pointed out that this campaign once-again<br />
proved its effectiveness to get noticed. I admire the courage of corporate marketers to<br />
push a polarizing concept into the market place. Not strictly for the sake of controversy,<br />
but to illustrate through the debate the attributes of a brand. If a model&#8217;s skin doesn&#8217;t<br />
need firming, why cast her for the role in a firming lotion ad?</p>
<p>As marketers, we&#8217;re being presented with tremendous opportunities. If we&#8217;re willing to<br />
put our brands into the public forum, we&#8217;ll get feedback. It takes confidence and<br />
preparation &#8211; it&#8217;s not a monologue any more. But, if the the product&#8217;s right and we&#8217;ve<br />
got our game on, we can get mass attention with or without the media&#8217;s ability to deliver<br />
a mass audience.</p>
<p>As far as the re-touching controversy goes, let&#8217;s get real. What the photographer does<br />
with lighting and make-up isn&#8217;t intended to replicate the frozen food isle at the grocery<br />
store. So what if a re-toucher removes a stray hair, or smoothes a curve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.laughlin.com/2008/05/22/doves-real-beauties-are-unreal-so-is-the-outrage-shut-up-and-finish-your-whopper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

