Dove's "Real Women Ads" being attacked
AdAge just posted an article titled "Dove: 'Real Women' Ads Were not 'Digitally Altered" by Jack Neff, attacking the concept that the campaign may have actually had digitally retouched images/video. If I can recall correctly, this has been a campaign in 2004/2005. Why the hell are they digging up old dirt on a a very old campaign? It was gorgeous when it came out, had a great concept, and made it's point and profit.
Do we NOT have enough advertising going on RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, to "attack" if that's what good ol' Jeff wants?
http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/flat3.asp?id=2287
Do we NOT have enough advertising going on RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, to "attack" if that's what good ol' Jeff wants?
http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/flat3.asp?id=2287
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chuck Nyren on -
What a non-story this was. Like one of the comments left on the Ad Age web site - it was more like a piece you'd find in The National Enquirer.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Hall on -
Agreed. But what editorial organization can pass up a chance to trash this sort of thing. Of course, as it turns out, the "digital alterations" were so minute this whole story should never have been a story in the first place.
-
Permalink Reply by Jordan on -
Glad we see eye to eye, and I'm not the only one that sees insignificance in such an article.
-
Permalink Reply by Diana Oyaga on -
I agree in fact if I had done the real beauty campaign I would have also altered the ads at least a little its just for design and esthetics not to transform a woman into something no other woman can be. I think the article was completely banal.
-
Permalink Reply by philip chudy on -
'Digitally altered'! - since when did anyone make a fuss about makeup.
'Pretouching vs retouching' the same thing separated by an ocean of cultural prejudice.
© 2008 Created by Steve Hall
