Dove: Evolution of a Brand – Case Solution

They claimed the following:

• ¼ cup of cream added to every bar
• Moisturizer vs. drying properties of soap: it doesn’t leave your skin dry
• Research to back it up: military research driving the special formulation
• Advertising was different and authentic: average-sized women

Dove’s Marketing Positioning in 2007:

In 2007, its market positioning was the number one cleansing brand in the health and beauty sector. In the early 2000s, Unilever wanted to make Dove one of their Masterbrands. Unilever needed to create a meaning for Dove that could apply to and extend over the entire product offerings. Thus, they chose Dove to stand for a point of view.

Dove moved away from emphasizing its functionality to trying to portray a point of view, which resulted in the “Campaign for Real Beauty.” They wanted to provoke a discussion and debate about real beauty. This campaign was done after many years of research where they found that beauty advertising and packaging created an unattainable standard for women.

Dove set a change in the idea of beauty altogether rather than marketing a functional product. They also had already extended the brand into more product offerings such as shampoo, deodorant, and the list goes on.

How did Unilever organize to do product category management and brand management in Unilever before 2000? What was the corresponding structure after 2000? How was brand meaning controlled before 2000, and how is it controlled at the time of the case?

Before 2,000, brand management was highly decentralized, and Unilever had spread itself across a variety of product categories within consumer packaged goods.

Brand managers were in charge of designing strategies, delivering profit targets, and making daily marketing decisions. Each brand was operating independently and competed within its categories. Moreover, a staff of brand assistants worked under the policies of a brand manager.

Considering there were disadvantages to this structure, the issues of control of brand management outweighed it. Also, there was no unified vision of what the portfolio should look like. Keep in mind that there were some brands that had different identities in different parts of the world. That resulted in Unilever’s brand confusion in 2000.

After 2,000, Unilever started splitting responsibility for a brand between two groups; one was in charge of brand development, where it was centralized but targeted globally, and the other was in charge of the brand building in specific markets where it was decentralized based on the major geographic regions Unilever occupied (localized brand building). They ended up reducing their portfolio to 400 core brands.

They created the path to growth initiative where they separated the functions of brand building and development. They also concentrated on product innovation in order to fuel their internal growth. Lastly, they created an initiative to create an overall umbrella brand across all of Unilever’s brands.

Before 2,000, the brand meaning was controlled as Dove was a cleanser. It aspired to be a healthier option for moisturized skin that doesn’t dry it. It was honest, authentic advertising based on dermatological research and emphasized the functional superior benefit of using Dove as opposed to any normal soap.

They had a simple meaning behind their brand: Dove will not dry your skin. Their strategy was decentralized and cannibalistically capitalist, pushing each band manager to compete with their in-house brands.

At the time of the case, Dove focused on consumers’ emotions, specifically women’s insecurity and fears in the beauty industry. They listened to the market and gathered results to make a talking campaign.

They also stood for a point of view to popularize a movement that aims to help women see their personal beauty that is already there. They used the emotional stimulus to implant the product deep into the consumers’ minds. Dove became a brand that held a statement of who you are.

Spend a little time searching blogs using Google Blog Search, Technorati, BlogRunner, or any other blog search engine to get a sense of what people are saying about Dove today. What does this discussion contribute to the meaning of the brand?

The discussions online contribute to the meaning of the brand, where it creates a conversation meaning.

To further elaborate, it allows the consumer to judge the brand (Dove) based on their perceptions, not just how well the brand is doing (Dove’s performance), but also on Dove’s ability to draw their emotions regarding beauty.

The consumer target was not only about women, as it turns out. It was also about men.

Footnote 1 of the case leads you to a blogger who asks, with reference to the age of YouTube advertising, “Is marketing now cheap, fast, and out of control?” Footnote 2 refers to Dove as having started a conversation “that they don’t have control of.” In “When Tush Comes to Dove,” Seth Stevenson writes about the “risky bet that Dove is making.” Do you see risks for the Dove brand today?

After reading the articles, I agreed with the authors to a certain degree, as I do not think it was a risk for Dove. It was mentioned that technological advancements enable information exchange among individuals to become faster and more proactive, and I agree with that.

Social media has connected us closer and broken down cultural and geographical barriers in order to form a virtual society where people are able to interact freely, sharing their emotions and information across the globe.

Considering we are quite connected through the internet if a marketer reaches one person, they will be able to share it through their social media, and it quickly can travel across the globe in a combination of word of mouth and social media.

This happens because people have certain relationships with people around them, and doing so will generate more consumers, as people sense that consumers talking about a brand are more trustworthy and reliable.

The marketing strategy is not cheap. It all depends on how they market the brand. In this specific case, Dove wanted to generate a buzz for the campaign and wanted more people to participate. Their strategy was to use the ordinary in order to highlight the extraordinary.

Considering that the models that were in the ads were normal people, Dove approached YouTube instead of the TV to start a conversation. This allowed consumers to share it with their peers, and it was a cost-effective approach that enabled them to refine their target audience more appropriately.

Dove took the opportunity of relationships amongst their consumers in order to consolidate the credibility of their “Real Beauty.” This resulted in consumers sharing the video and simultaneously becoming the brand’s endorsers. Dove’s message brought value to a certain group, and doing so did not risk the brand’s mission.

The more involvement from people, the more awareness the brand receives. Using models that are not fit conveys a message that real beauty is within all of us. However, Dove did receive criticism. Several people thought that using Photoshop ended up devaluing the ads’ efficiency, while Dove focused on “Real Beauty.”

Keep in mind that when consumers looked at billboards with unfit and normal women, it ended up confusing them about the brand message. Consumers weren’t sure whether the models’ weight was the new standard of beauty or whether real beauty meant that they should be satisfied with who they were.