Discussion:
Latest Casualty of the PC movement: the word NORMAL on hair/skin care products
(too old to reply)
Jason
2021-03-10 16:59:08 UTC
Permalink
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/unilever-drops-word-normal-beauty-products

Unilever drops word 'normal' from beauty and personal care products, has also pledged to no longer alter a person’s body shape, size, proportion or skin color in its marketing materials.

Is this the new normal?

Unilever is stripping the word "normal" from the marketing language for its beauty and personal care products, in a bid to makeover the brand as more inclusive.

The consumer goods conglomerate, whose portfolio includes Dove, Axe, TRESemme and Vaseline, announced the news Tuesday, unveiling plans for a new "Positive Beauty" vision for its brand advertising.

Within a year, the word "normal" will be pulled from packaging for at least 200 products, the Associated Press reports. Marketing for hair and skincare products has traditionally used language like "for normal skin" or "normal hair," but a global study by Unilever found that the term "normal" as a descriptor for hair and skin makes most people (56%) feel excluded.

Gauging opinion, Unilever polled 10,000 people in nine countries and learned that 70% believe the word "normal" on ads and product packaging has a negative impact. To that end, 74% agreed that the beauty and personal care business could better focus on making people feel better, not just look better.

Guided by this new ethos, Unilever – which Reuters reports is one of the world’s top advertisers – will no longer alter a person’s body shape, size, proportion or skin color, and feature more models "from diverse groups who are under-represented," the London company said in a statement.

"With one billion people using our beauty and personal care products every day, and even more seeing our advertising, our brands have the power to make a real difference to people’s lives," Sunny Jain, president of beauty and personal care, said in a news release. "As part of this, we are committed to tackling harmful norms and stereotypes and shaping a broader, far more inclusive definition of beauty."

"We know that removing ‘normal’ from our products and packaging will not fix the problem alone, but it is an important step forward," Jain added.

In June, Unilever announced it would pull the terms "whitening," "lightening" and "fair" from its marketing materials to better promote racial inclusivity.

As part of the push, the company renamed Fair & Lovely product line (sold in India) to Glow & Lovely, following backlash that the brand was perpetuating negative stereotypes about darker skin tones.
Adam H. Kerman
2021-03-10 18:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/unilever-drops-word-normal-beauty-products
Unilever drops word 'normal' from beauty and personal care products, has
also pledged to no longer alter a person’s body shape, size,
proportion or skin color in its marketing materials.
Is this the new normal?
Unilever is stripping the word "normal" from the marketing language for
its beauty and personal care products, in a bid to makeover the brand as
more inclusive. . . .
Uh, ok. I give up: Why am I supposed to get outraged? According the the
article, they did market research and found that their marketing terms
made a significant number of people feel excluded.

If you want to sell shit to people but you make them feel excluded, then
it's long past time to change your marketing.

Sounds like a business reason to me, and not P.C. in any way.
Lenona
2021-03-11 02:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Reminds me of Crayola and the "flesh" crayon. (I was surprised to find that the formal name change happened before I was born!)

What people should learn, early on, is that most(?) people in this world do not have that skin color.

From Wikipedia:

"The first changes to the No. 64 box were made in its first year of production, as Light Blue and Brilliant Rose were replaced by Turquoise Blue and Magenta. From then to 1990, no colors were replaced, although, in 1963, Flesh was formally renamed Peach, partially in response to the civil rights movement, the company said.[5][6] Flesh had been known as Flesh Tint until 1949, and was called Pink Beige from 1956 to 1958.[2] In 1962, the flesh-colored crayon was not featured in the commemorative box because Crayola felt it was insensitive. They recognized that not all skin tones are the same."
Louis Epstein
2021-03-12 08:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Jason
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/unilever-drops-word-normal-beauty-products
Unilever drops word 'normal' from beauty and personal care products, has
also pledged to no longer alter a person???s body shape, size,
proportion or skin color in its marketing materials.
Is this the new normal?
Unilever is stripping the word "normal" from the marketing language for
its beauty and personal care products, in a bid to makeover the brand as
more inclusive. . . .
Uh, ok. I give up: Why am I supposed to get outraged? According the the
article, they did market research and found that their marketing terms
made a significant number of people feel excluded.
If you want to sell shit to people but you make them feel excluded, then
it's long past time to change your marketing.
Sounds like a business reason to me, and not P.C. in any way.
If feelings of being excluded are created by the P.C. campaigns,
validating those feelings is indeed a kowtow to the P.C.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Adam H. Kerman
2021-03-12 17:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Jason
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/unilever-drops-word-normal-beauty-products
Unilever drops word 'normal' from beauty and personal care products, has
also pledged to no longer alter a person???s body shape, size,
proportion or skin color in its marketing materials.
Is this the new normal?
Unilever is stripping the word "normal" from the marketing language for
its beauty and personal care products, in a bid to makeover the brand as
more inclusive. . . .
Uh, ok. I give up: Why am I supposed to get outraged? According the the
article, they did market research and found that their marketing terms
made a significant number of people feel excluded.
If you want to sell shit to people but you make them feel excluded, then
it's long past time to change your marketing.
Sounds like a business reason to me, and not P.C. in any way.
If feelings of being excluded are created by the P.C. campaigns,
validating those feelings is indeed a kowtow to the P.C.
That would be the business of marketing. If more shit gets sold, then it
was a legitimate marketing campaign.

I will agree with you about P.C. itself. It appeals to the emotions and
misdirects people who then get to blame outside forces for their
problems, without taking a hard look at themselves, trying to figure out
what problems and what weaknesses they have that only they can address.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter why people feel bad about themselves. A
good marketing campaign will validate one's negative feelings. The
solution is to buy more of the shit that's being advertised to relieve
the bad feelings.

You might say that P.C. nonsense is a form of marketing because it works
exactly the same way.

Loading...