Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Beauty is only plugin deep
March 6, 2013 11:31 PM   Subscribe

When a soap company washes off the glow filter For 10 years a certain manufacturer of soaps has been on a campaign to normalize realistic images of beauty. Rather subversively, they took their message to the graphic artists themselves by masquerading a Photoshop glamour enhancing plugin as a "beauty augmenter;" a trick revert action to the original model, wrinkles, puffiness, true body and all. This begs the question: can we now accept that some corporations may act in the best interest of body image, or is this just good PR? [via Petapixel]
posted by moonbird (54 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
PR.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 11:37 PM on March 6, 2013 [8 favorites]


More about truthiness in photography, whole different & darker angle here. [mefi previosly]
posted by moonbird at 11:41 PM on March 6, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well, legally speaking, it can't be anything but good PR because corporations are held responsible to their shareholders to only do things which will maximize their profits. But marketing to people who don't look like models is a pretty good strategy.
posted by cthuljew at 11:42 PM on March 6, 2013


This indicates that we are getting their incentives right. I don't ever expect CEOs to be moral. The endgame is to establish legislation and informal consumer pressure such that the most profitable possible course of action for a company is doing right. It's good to see a cosmetics company bowing to the interest that their clients have in a healthy body image. It would be great if the laws were such that the most profitable way to run a bank was prudent investment.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:46 PM on March 6, 2013 [5 favorites]


No, corporations do not have to, and should not only do things that maximize profits. It is time to discard this dangerous and community destroying myth.
posted by eye of newt at 11:57 PM on March 6, 2013 [53 favorites]


This has been an incredible series of marketing campaigns by Unilever. Actually it's Ogilvy that's doing the heavy lifting but at least there are executives at Unilever that get that you can successfully sell beauty products without playing on people's fears and insecurities.

The problem, however, is that corporations like Unilever still have these enormous megaphones with which they shape our perceptions of what it means to be a good and successful person, which at the end of the day just translates to purchasing more of their products.

Sure, Unilever and Ogilvy should be encouraged for what they are doing; these Dove ads are much better than the industry average. We should, however, be more aware and critical about corporations dictating how people should think and act and I don't think it's unreasonable to teach people at a young age a kind of literacy related to corporate persuasion.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:03 AM on March 7, 2013


Keep in mind this is the same Unilever that makes a significant chunk of its profits in India and the Middle East with the skin-lightening cream "Fair & Lovely". In countless advertisements, it's reinforcing the ideal that only white skin is "Real Beauty" and that black skin is an ugly abomination associated with poverty and failure.

Gross. Fuck those guys.
posted by dontjumplarry at 12:18 AM on March 7, 2013 [25 favorites]


Betteridge's Law of Headlines says, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".

I think we can extend that to just saying that we should take the most epistemologically pessimistic (skeptical, if you will) position towards any of these questions. Of course it's PR.
posted by curuinor at 12:19 AM on March 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


It's a good campaign, but make no mistake: when it stops working, they'll do something else. That's how marketing works. In this case, the public good and the commercial goals align.

There is a case to be made that Unilever has taken a risk with its campaign to promote a public good before the commercial benefits to its brand were known. But fundamentally this is about marketing Dove products. Smart ethics-led marketing, whether its encouraging you to drive a Prius or buy an organic loaf of bread or use Dove products, is about getting you to pay the premium to make yourself happier by making the world a better place.
posted by MuffinMan at 12:48 AM on March 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Rather subversively, they took their message to social media platforms, where people like us started talking about them. I'm sorry, I roll my eyes at this whole thing. Be proud of yourselves for the Real Beauty campaign but don't call this viral marketing campaign 'raising awareness' about anything except Dove products.
posted by PercussivePaul at 1:00 AM on March 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


yes, it's not "dove" doing these ads, it's Unilever, which also makes crap like axe body spray and the like, featuring ads with nubile Photoshopped women all the time.
posted by delmoi at 1:03 AM on March 7, 2013 [11 favorites]


I think the best approach is just to assume that all advertising is always lying. That's what I teach my kids.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 1:11 AM on March 7, 2013 [15 favorites]


Thank you delmoi, my thoughts exactly.
posted by PercussivePaul at 1:20 AM on March 7, 2013


The kinds of retouchers who do beauty ad campaigns don't download Photoshop Actions from reddit.

It's interesting to see some of the production side effects of digital photography. As our tools have gotten more exact, so has art direction. You used to pull a 4x5 Polaroid to proof, now you shoot with the camera tethered to two 30" monitors run by a digital tech. We look at these images with a microscope and our tools are lasers, anything is possible.

The retoucher is like the guy polishing the cars as they come off the end of the assembly line. All the decisions about what it's going to look like and how to put it all together were made a lot earlier down the line. By the time it gets to the retoucher, they're just preparing it for delivery.
posted by bradbane at 1:22 AM on March 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think this discussion is interesting because of its focus on retouched images of facial beauty. I myself am an incredibly beautiful person. It interests me to know how closely modern technology is approaching the ideal of perfect physical beauty, as expressed by me.

My facial proportions are ideal. The ratio of my forehead to my nose exhibits the exact number PHI, equal to (1+Sqrt(5))/2, which is the Golden Ratio.

I worry about other people. I see them as I walk the streets, and it's pretty clear to me that they do not have the exact proportions of perfect beauty. One can only hope that technology will correct this. And soon, because I'm tired of looking at these ugly malformed people.

It's a sad sad world we live in.
posted by twoleftfeet at 1:48 AM on March 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


twoleftfeet == eponysterical
posted by effugas at 1:53 AM on March 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Ugh. Even their choice of that insipid lo-fi "simple girl, simple tune" music, carefully selected (or designed) by some ad fuck who needs something "real, authentic, raw, natural" to reach "the demo".

And the "subversive" reddit user name they came up: boastweed9 (visible on the video). When they came up with boastweed9... Hoo! What a subversive moment.

Using "LOVE" to sell cars (Fuck you, Subaru) is one thing. But flaunting a flashy faux turncoat against your own industry to sell more soap... that's a layer cake of recursive crapulence that can make a career! Great job, team!

For detox, here's some appropriate Bill Hicks
posted by Moistener at 1:53 AM on March 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


Korean photoshopping promoting body types that are physically impossible. Also in the comments someone links to a demonstration video for a program that can track bodies that are moving and automatically adjust them frame by frame.
posted by subdee at 2:05 AM on March 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


Beauty is more than skin deep. Especially when discussing Unilever, makers of Magnum ice cream bars. YUM!
posted by Goofyy at 2:23 AM on March 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


No, corporations do not have to, and should not only do things that maximize profits. It is time to discard this dangerous and community destroying myth.

Community... destroying? Please explain.
posted by The Michael The at 4:03 AM on March 7, 2013


Nice idea, but -- assuming that they're sincere about it - they're still not going for the right people.

The graphic designers and artists are being paid by someone to retouch photos for ads. So the only thing this is going to do is get the graphic designer to sigh and do it all again, because they know that BigBeautyCompanyBoss is the one who wants the girl to have thin thighs, and they won't get paid unless they give her to him.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:19 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


I appreciate Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty," but it rings hollow coming from a company that also sells underarm-whitening deodorant. I had no idea I was supposed to care what my armpit skin looks like, until that product launched.
posted by Metroid Baby at 4:53 AM on March 7, 2013 [7 favorites]


I had a friend who did visual effects work (video) for beauty marketing. What she showed me blew my mind. Yeah, it's way beyond a plugin or two. Next time you watch a shampoo commercial, including Dove, watch how the hair cascades as it falls. Fake. Watch how it catches the light. Fake. Watch how it slowly follows the model's face as it moves. Fake.

The irony of the Dove ads is that they probably spent big money getting just the right fake "natural" look anyway. There probably IS a filter that adds love handles, a separate one for acne and moles, and a third for aged skin tone.

It's all fake. Nothing you see in an ad is truthful even when it's truthy.
posted by spitbull at 4:59 AM on March 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


Korean photoshopping promoting body types that are physically impossible. Also in the comments someone links to a demonstration video for a program that can track bodies that are moving and automatically adjust them frame by frame.
posted by subdee at 7:05 PM on 3/7
[1 favorite −] Favorite added! [!]


THIS is RIVETING
posted by DoctorFedora at 5:00 AM on March 7, 2013


For the first time, we spoke directly to those responsible for manipulating our perception of beauty – art directors, graphic designers and photo retouchers – in a place only they could be reached.

That would be the meeting rooms of their clients...the ones who demand the retouching be done.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:17 AM on March 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


I like to think that Major Major Major Major went on to be a marketing exec for Unilever after the war, and the crowning achievement of his very long career was to set up an industry that made people ashamed of how they looked on a massive scale, in order to sell them a product whose overriding theme is that it's okay to look like a human (sometimes).
posted by graphnerd at 5:18 AM on March 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


a company that also sells underarm-whitening deodorant.

This hurts my brain. My poor grey-coloured brain.
posted by Fizz at 5:19 AM on March 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


Dove soaps are products of Unilever PC, which also manufactures and markets AXE brand hygiene items. I have always marveled at people who take the Dove "Campaign for Real Beauty" seriously, given that the AXE brand managers down the hall from the Dove folks are busy reinforcing the same tired stereotypes that Dove purports to be "creating dialogue" about.

Unilever is a big multinational that uses whatever ad messaging it determines will move the most product, period. Giving them exposure on Metafilter is a tall, cool Pepsi Blue indeed.
posted by killdevil at 5:27 AM on March 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


I was curious where discussion would go with this. Knowing that Dove is not some sole soap producing entity, like a giant soap laying chicken, but rather a brand that has had a successful "alternative" campaign that runs afoul of monoculture norms, I expected a lively analysis. The upthread mention of Unilever's sales of whitening creams in India is something that "Dove" should take on. Sneak a little darkening back into the cream. So radical. What I found interesting was the approach- a false PS action. But I wonder how many touch up artists really took the bait? And who stopped and said... "you right. I should stop now!" More then likely, the looked at the clock and hit cntrl+z.
posted by moonbird at 5:50 AM on March 7, 2013


MetaFilter: a giant soap-laying chicken.
posted by Madamina at 5:54 AM on March 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


We could probably use this method to sort out the economy if we had an Excel macro called 'fix your accounts' which automatically undid your last twelve changes when you ran it.
posted by Segundus at 6:02 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Madamina, I would like to buy your chicken.
posted by bitteroldman at 6:22 AM on March 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


> a brand that has had a successful "alternative" campaign that runs afoul of monoculture norms

It still plays in to monoculture norms because the campaign hinges on convincing the public to construct their identity and secure their self-worth via brand association. Unilever may be taking a different approach, but the end goal is still to make a whole huge group of strangers rely on buying Dove to feel okay about themselves. All ads do that? Well yeah, it's part of the monoculture.

But I wonder how many touch up artists really took the bait?

People doing touch-ups don't hit a button and "voila!" It's a long process of small manipulations, as you can see even from Dove's own earlier ads. They're much more likely to play with levels directly or use one of the very basic, pre-existing filters if they need a slight glow. I doubt anyone "fell for it," and if they did, the effect was probably more like your boss mocking you for doing your job than it was come to Jesus.
posted by postcommunism at 6:23 AM on March 7, 2013


It's worth mentioning that the campaign's distribution of its Photoshop actions file was pretty desultory. They appear to have tossed it up on a little-trafficked Reddit board and called it a day. I'd guess the thread they posted sank without a trace (or was downvoted to Hell if Ogilvy's astroturfing attempt became known).
posted by killdevil at 6:45 AM on March 7, 2013


Is the Target brand of soap making me uglier?!
posted by Brocktoon at 6:50 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


PopPhoto dug up a couple of accounts on Reddit that were used to post/discuss the action, and they're both pretty blatantly sockpuppets, and the social media push seemed to have almost no effect. If this whole thing hadn't been caught by some blogs, it would have just evaporated. The Verge apparently tried the thing out, and it didn't even work very well.

It seems Dove has been accused of Photoshopping the Campaign for Real Beauty ads, just in a less extreme way to some others.
posted by themadthinker at 6:59 AM on March 7, 2013


I don't know why we even talk about soap and have soap companies when Dr. Bronner's has been around for basically ever and is pretty much the best liquid substance in the world. But much of America confuses me.
posted by Rory Marinich at 7:11 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


It gets you clean.
posted by dirtdirt at 7:13 AM on March 7, 2013


The irony of the Dove ads is that they probably spent big money getting just the right fake "natural" look anyway.

This.
And it begins with the cattle-call for the models, searching-out just the right face...sort-of approaching middle-age...fit, but not bony...smooth skin with just the right sorts of smile lines, etc. etc. The image is carefully managed and massaged from the moment the campaign is conceived.

I don't know why we even talk about soap and have soap companies when Dr. Bronner's has been around for basically ever and is pretty much the best liquid substance in the world.

Why?
Dr. Bronner's Baby Mild Soap: $4.49 for one bar.
Dove Sensitive Skin Soap: $6.36 for a pack of 6 bars.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:20 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


subdee: "Korean photoshopping promoting body types that are physically impossible. Also in the comments someone links to a demonstration video for a program that can track bodies that are moving and automatically adjust them frame by frame."

I'd find her argument a whole lot more convincing if her blog's header didn't feature an (obviously 'shopped) photo of a chiseled Korean man.

If we're going to limit our discussion to Korea, it's possible to make the argument that both genders have it pretty bad when it comes to objectification and body issues.
posted by schmod at 7:23 AM on March 7, 2013


> No, corporations do not have to, and should not only do things that maximize profits. It is time to discard this dangerous and community destroying myth.

Community... destroying? Please explain.


I don't know what eye of newt meant, but just to riff on this a little ... corporations originally were created one-by-one, by special statutes, to help a group of people do something that they couldn't do individually and that would be good for the commonwealth. Like, build a bridge, launch an expedition, dig a canal, etc. "By the end of the 18th century, there were about 300 incorporated companies in the United States, most of them providing public services, and only eight manufacturing companies." This is basically a pro-community legal structure.

States passed general incorporation statutes as the economy got more complicated, because it turned out to be useful in a lot of situations to gather together a lot of capital to do something, and to define clear legal roles for the people who were putting up the money (shareholders) and the people who were actually making the thing happen (directors). So this stage is no longer explicitly about public interest projects -- it's about making the economy flow smoothly -- but it's still basically about people pooling their resources to make the world work.

In the 1980s -- the same time when politicians influenced by Ayn Rand started picking up steam -- business scholars developed the idea that there was a huge "agency" problem with the corporate model: how do you make sure that the directors do what's in the best interests of the shareholders? There was no real evidence that this was a huge problem in practice, but they assumed it was; and they also assumed that the sole interest shareholders could have in an enterprise was to maximize profits; and that the sole motivator a corporate director could have was to maximize her own profit. (Pause here to note to core ideology: no one can be trusted, and no one acts for any reason but self-interest.) Based on those assumptions, they concluded that the best way to run a corporation was to give large amounts of stock to the directors, so that maximizing their own profits would mean maximizing shareholder profits and the problem of making sure directors acted in shareholder interests would be solved.

Corporate directors are leading thinkers in corporate law -- they're the ones who become professors and regulators and authors and so on. And they set their own compensation, and the conclusion of this line of thought was that they should be better compensated. So this scholarly idea was embraced wholeheartedly and sold to shareholders and the public as natural law.

The result is a sort of self-fulfilling Randian prophecy: shareholders do perceive corporations solely as profit engines. Directors do act solely in their own best interests. Corporations do make decisions solely to maximize short-term profit. It's a system of incentives that teaches us to accept sociopathic economic actors as the norm -- even as role models. It teaches us to see groups of human beings trying to get something done as voracious machines for whose actions no human being can be held responsible. That's community destroying.
posted by jhc at 7:34 AM on March 7, 2013 [9 favorites]


It really is cyborg time in marketing as in the culture more generally. The line between human actors and digitally processed effects is very blurry now, quite literally in some cases. It would be more interesting if they started with conventionally perfect models and then digitally aged and de-enhanced them to look like actual people who might buy their soap products, and just as possible in some ways -- to actually deconstruct the logic of the conventional aspirational marketing of these products with almost impossibly perfect specimens of humanity.

Basically, you are always seeing an animation now. Much of what used to be left in its relatively unmodified state -- hair, eye color, skin tone -- is now pitch corrected, as it were. Everything is AutoTuned (tm). Everything is PhotoShopped (tm). Etc.

We have always lived within cultural filters for the most part, but with out natural perception fairly intact. Now you cannot really believe what you see or hear.
posted by spitbull at 7:38 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


(These capacities of course are inherent in the very idea of mediation of any sort, which occurs in even the most technologically simple of human cultures by virtue of the very apparatus of perception being a transducer. However, mechanical reproduction, recording, and now digital capture and circulation have introduced huge new capacities for mediation to outrun the perceptual apparatus that took millions of years to develop through adaptation, and tens of thousands of years to develop as an oral/copresent capacity before the first printing press ever ran. For example, until just over a century ago, if you heard "music," you knew you were in the presence of other humans doing socially organized things in a locatable position in space in relation to your own body. Now, most of us spend most of our time listening to sounds made far away under conditions we don't share, and in solitude. The mimetic faculty is organic. So is near-sightedness.)
posted by spitbull at 7:43 AM on March 7, 2013


Targeting art directors, graphic designers, and retouchers in this ad unfairly villifies the people that do the grunt work at ad agencies for a fraction of the proceeds that their superiors and clients benefit from by telling their staff to make so-and-so thinner, whiter, prettier, smoother, whatevs.

I'm utterly disgusted by this ad. It's a pseudo-moral stance that is blatant pandering to the public's insecurities with minimal actual action on the part of the company. It's fucking safe and cowardly. Dove gets to act like they care about women's body images without ACTUALLY HAVING TO DO ANYTHING.

Maybe I should go wave a flag in front of Goldman Sachs that says "Hey File Clerks! Stop filing the paperwork for derivative securities!" because I'm positive that will be just as effective at getting GS to change their business model as this tripe.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 8:04 AM on March 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


This is pretty lame coming from Dove, which I have always considered to be the most synthetic soap with the most synthetic media production techniques. It's all soft glow filters and soap that doesn't ever rinse off, leaving you coated with a disgustingly soft film of something.

Why?
Dr. Bronner's Baby Mild Soap: $4.49 for one bar.
Dove Sensitive Skin Soap: $6.36 for a pack of 6 bars.


That’s because you’re comparing bars to bars. I don’t even know why they have the bars, really, the quart bottles are where it’s at. If you were buying the quart bottles, you would know that “Enjoy only two cosmetics, enough sleep and Dr. Bronner’s ‘Magic Soap’ to clean body-mind-soul-spirit absolutely One! Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! For facial packs, scalp, & soothing body rub, add dash on back towel in sink of hot water. Wring out. Lay over face & scalp. Massage with fingertips. Repeat 3 or 4 times ‘til arms, legs & all are rubbed, always toward the heart. Rinse towel in plain hot water and massage again. Breathe deeply! Health is Wealth. Within 9 minutes you feel fresh and clean, saving 90% of your hot water & soap, ready to help teach the whole world the Moral ABC of All-One-God-Faith! For we’re ALL ONE OR NONE! ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE!” and “DILUTE IT...REFILL FROM GALLON OR DRUM AT STORE! OK!” as well as other Moral ABC. It looks like that last part might not be on the quart labels anymore, but it's good advice, HOW DO YOU DILUTE BAR SOAP!? I got a gallon of soap once (the pine stuff, not the body stuff, was maybe $30) and used it for washing pretty much everything in my life and it lasted almost two years. If you dilute the soap and/or put a dash on a towel for cleaning it lasts waaaay long. You can also put maybe 2t mixed with water in a foaming had soap dispenser and it totally foams; if it's not rich enough lather, add more soap and shake gently.
posted by nTeleKy at 8:11 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


dontjumplarry: "In countless advertisements, it's reinforcing the ideal that only white skin is "Real Beauty" and that black skin is an ugly abomination associated with poverty and failure. "

Except when they are trying to convince people with white skin that they need to be darker!

I'm in favor of almost anything that brings attention to this kind of extreme photo manipulation and I think the days of advertisers presenting make-believe people as totally real, totally normal and totally attainable are numbered. I also wonder if some of the blatantly awful retouching that results in, say, missing/extra limbs means that some of the subversion is coming from inside the house.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:12 AM on March 7, 2013


There is a lot of critique that can be made about the Dove campaign. At its heart it is simply redefining a new beauty standard that is slightly less offensive than the one it is calling out.

But, we are still talking about the male-gaze here, and a notion of "acceptable" ranges of weight, skin tone and so on.
posted by clvrmnky at 8:40 AM on March 7, 2013


Betteridge's Law of Headlines says, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".

So you're saying that it's neither corporations acting in the best interest of body image nor good PR?
posted by straight at 11:03 AM on March 7, 2013


Maybe I should go wave a flag in front of Goldman Sachs that says "Hey File Clerks! Stop filing the paperwork for derivative securities!" because I'm positive that will be just as effective at getting GS to change their business model as this tripe.

I'm a retoucher, and yeah, pretty much.
posted by bradbane at 11:06 AM on March 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


If we're going to limit our discussion to Korea, it's possible to make the argument that both genders have it pretty bad when it comes to objectification and body issues.

You should check out the other Korean Photoshop Disasters posts. There are several posts about men being altered, and how their expectations differ from women, as well.
posted by Vysharra at 11:47 AM on March 7, 2013


I'd find her argument a whole lot more convincing if her blog's header didn't feature an (obviously 'shopped) photo of a chiseled Korean man. If we're going to limit our discussion to Korea, it's possible to make the argument that both genders have it pretty bad when it comes to objectification and body issues.

The Grand Narrative blogger is a guy. He wrote about male objectification, and discussed the issues facing both genders in his published (to other websites) essays.

The chiseled man in that photo is Taecyeon of the boyband 2PM, a common reference point when discussing male objectification in K-pop.
posted by fatehunter at 12:30 PM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


This whole discussion is a reminder about how thoroughly marketing has tainted everything. That no matter what the company is doing, no matter how sincere they are in accomplishing good, everything they do is filtered through the lens of marketing.

Most likely, the company has made sure everything is going through the marketing department, so it's been carefully wordsmithed, tweaked, measured, focus-grouped, and iterated upon, by people who are only interested in making it as effective as possible. And then the public, on the receiving end, are so certain that everything is just PR and marketing spin, that often we immediately dismiss it.

There's almost nothing seen as authentic anymore in any interaction between a business and a customer. (sorry, "consumer") It's actually fairly depressing to think about.
posted by evilangela at 12:50 PM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


It wasn't my intention to single out Koreans (or the Korean beauty industry) in particular, that was simply the most extreme example of print photoshopping that came to mind - so extreme that it's almost immediately obvious, looking at the pictures, that they can not possibly be real. And yet to people surrounded by those images all the time, they must appear both real (or at least attainable with surgery) and desirable.

Also, the idea that video, as well as still images, can now be altered, and that making those changes might be as easy as moving a couple sliders in an otherwise fully automated program, is scary. The demonstration shows the program being used to make people taller, shorter, thinner, and fatter, but let's be real, in the real world this will pretty much only be used to make people thinner.

On that note, I've always sort of suspected SNSD - Mr. Taxi of being digitally altered in (at least) the group-dance shots.

I think that blog is valuable because the author isn't coming at it from the perspective of someone who's completely grossed out by the thinness and plasticness of the models, he and his readers have been taken in by this stuff and do find those kinds of body shapes attractive. That's the kind of person who needs the reality check the most.
posted by subdee at 2:33 PM on March 7, 2013


Dove is interested in one thing, and that's making people associate them with promoting healthy bodies so that they can sell more soap bars.

I've long ago gotten past the point where I think any corporation has anything in mind other than the almighty dollar no matter how nice they dress it up.
posted by Fister Roboto at 9:47 PM on March 7, 2013


« Older Skip Cameron, a Mormon, writes for Kotaku on the r...  |  Portrayal of the “Other” in Is... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments