the art of the brand

Here’s a precautionary tale for brand image harmony.
One of the world’s larger corporations, an outfit not many consumers have heard of although they use products from it every day, is Unilever.
Unilver makes Knorr soups, Slim-Fast, and Hellman’s mayonaise, Country Crock, and Becel. Some may see a contradiction between making mayonaise and foods to protect the heart. to Unilever, it is all just chemicals. That’s what they sell. Chemicals. They make them attractive. They also make Axe body spray, and run a campaign for Dove soap–which of course they also make, telling young women how not to fall for the guys who wear Axe.
Recently they got called out for it. Actually, over a year ago, I was involved in a discussion group about the hypocrisy of advertsing’s targeting of youth, and pointed out “dove girl” + axe = 0 as a value, but it can sell a lot of chemicals in the meantime.
When Unliver got the call out, it’s response was  “just kidding” about Axe.
let’s get real.
Do people wear axe to project the message that they are idiots who don’t know any better? to be attractive by self-satirization, self put-down? who would they attract?
“Beauty” does not “evolve”. The perception of what “beauty” is at any point in a culture is molded by other values. That’s art history 202. And the creatives are supposed to know it.
Does anyone seriously think that the trip from some paleolithic “Venus” to Kate Moss represents a better adaptation to fecundity, social integration, healthier children? Does anybody really think that in a culture where there is no longer a functional difference between celebrity and notoriety, and someone can “be famous for being famous” that foundational perspective is getting destroyed?
If Unilever’s brands can be co-associated with the “Dove girl” perspective they will be garnishing salads with Wishbone dressings, while drinking Lipton tea–and social groups will coalesce to give thanks they aren;t married to the kind of guy who wears Axe, and in order to avoid that happening, will need Slim-Fast. A perfect circle.
The reality is that in a consumer driven economy the need to create a perceived benefit drives the creation of needs, fears, aspirations that can be satisfied by the benefits of the product offered.
Unilever, and any other manufacturer, exists by locating and exploiting niches.
That is the Darwinian standard for “beauty”.
Unilever’s defense is either then ugly, or the emperor’s new clothes.
I would offer that this entire issue is an example of the communications arts industry attacking itself for forgetting its fundamental purpose, to connect people with meaning.
If a guerilla or counter message campaign needs to be run, the strategists need to have clarity. They need to be able to defend their fundamental mission. That mission might be moving farm crops to stomachs, moving petro-stocks to skin, or creating space for community.
The art of the brand is about purpose. When purpose is not defined, things go wrong.