Skin lightening products have been medically used to treat various skin disorders; nevertheless, significant markets have transformed their purpose for cosmetics uses, especially in regions where the dark skin tone is prevalent. More than 250 brands in India alone, with most multinational brands, including Vaseline, Fair & Lovely, Dove, and Garnier (Kamani, p. 1352, para. 5). It is estimated that about 60% of Indian women use skin lightening products daily (Kamani, p. 1352, para. 6). The skin lightening advertisement, “Fair & Lovely,” was marketed by Unilever in many African and Asian countries, especially in India by the Indian subsidiary of Unilever, Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL). The advertisement was chosen due to mixed reactions from different consumers and societies. Intrinsically, the essay will discuss persuasion techniques, non-verbal elements, and how this advertisement violates human dignity. Advertising a product that perpetuates racism or sexism stereotypes violates human dignity, and its premises are not acceptable.
Fair & Lovely advertisement has arguer, intended audience, and the opponent as per Excerpt from Chapter 1. The arguer for this marketing is Hindustan Lever Limited due to its point of view of supporting the brand (Shevde, p. 36, para. 7). For example, the advert portrays this cream as making a person obtain their dream job (Shevde, p. 36, para. 7). The intended audience for this advert is people seeking to particular beauty or people having certain beliefs. The primary market for this cream is women aged between 18 and 35 years, mainly those with dark skin. It has been reported that girls between 12 and 14 years use this product due to its marketing in ‘affordable’ small packages (Kamani, p. 1353, para. 7). As a result, the ad has attracted many opponents terming the product as socially racist and demeaning to some people. Opponents of this advertisement are people with darker skin tones, blacks, African immigrant communities, and black movements (Kamani, p. 1354, para.5). Critics argue that the advert perpetuates racism, colonization, and slavery because lighting skin can lead to better paying jobs and happy life.
The advert links light or white skin for women to wealth and desirability. Historically, light skin privilege is associated with the European colonial society, significant positions, and wealth (Fariduddin, p. 67, para. 3). In essence, the advertisement’s appeal is based on entrenched cultural beliefs that light or white-skinned people are of high social status, unlike people with darker skin. People with paler skin are believed to be more attractive, resulting in better jobs, lives, and marriages. It shows the desire that light skin tones favor female beauty, and the audience should adopt the product to associate themselves with better things.
The fallacy in this advertisement is the product fulfills social needs, provided that fair skin is valuable. The company claims that the product is seemingly harmless and does not lead to disastrous outcomes (Dempsey, p.124, para.2). However, fair skin is more vulnerable to skin diseases than dark skin, implying that the product is not as harmless as depicted in the advert. Furthermore, the product cannot be used as a pharmaceutical product, and thus it is not approved by dermatologists, so the benefits demonstrated in the advert are fallacies. Appeals to emotion are portrayed in this marketing technique to make people happy and feel empowered. Arguers claim that the adverts promote choices and empowerment associated with being more satisfied.
Lastly, the slanting technique applied in this ad is slanting by omission and distortion. It involves describing situations based on selecting specific facts and issues to emphasize (Chapter 2, p.36, para.3). The video ‘Fair & Lovely’ displays only the product’s advantages by elucidating that product users get their dream jobs and are noticeably happier. It does not show warnings or side effects of using or misusing the product; instead concentrates on the benefits. The whole argument about the advertisement amounts to disagreements due to the strong objections by the intended audience. Taking the advertisement’s persuasive elements as premises is not acceptable since the intended audience does not accept the good arguments (Chapter 3, p. 55, para. 5-7). Advertisement’s ideas have raised mixed reactions based on various studies that cannot be ignored, and therefore such premises are not acceptable.
Dignity has different theoretical meanings based on different situations and circumstances. Based on this scenario, dignity is defined as a personal right to be valued and respected for the sake of ethical treatment (Fariduddin, p. 69, para. 4). Kant simplifies the meaning of dignity as a thing with ‘moral worth’ (Rachels, p. 1, para. 9). It describes issues relating to the worth of human beings applicable to cultures and religious ideals and beliefs (Rachels, p. 1, para. 9). Dignity is also crucial since it denotes reception of degree of respect and treatment with proper self-respect.
Fair & Lovely Cream advertisements might violate human dignity since many moral issues have been raised. The marketing strategy used links to the racist stereotype and prejudice relating to skin color. Human dignity is violated when claiming that individuals can only get their dream jobs by lightening their skins. Getting a better job and being happier should not be associated with skin color or other forms of discrimination. The primary target for this advertisement comprises people with a low level of education and those who cannot understand controversies and criticisms associated with the product. There are claims that the product’s efficacy is not understandable, showing a high level of hypocrisy. With all these claims, the advert seems not to allow the ‘universal law’ that requires ethical treatment to all people regardless of their status (Rachels, p. 1, para. 9). The video ignores the rational being of the audience to decide on a particular preference implying that the advertisement wholly violates human dignity.
In conclusion, marketing strategies, such as advertising that use racism or other forms of discrimination and violate human dignity, should not be accepted. Fair & Lovely advert seems to demean dark skin by demonstrating success accompanied by light skin. The arguer is HLL, and the intended audience is people seeking beauty, and opponents are people associated with dark skin color. The advertised product does not fulfill the social needs described by the fallacy and slanting technique of omissions and distortions. The advertisement has elements of a violation of human dignity by linking success and better lives with complexion. Eventually, my position is that the ad extensively violates human dignity and should not be encouraged. It is wrong to say that people get employed based on skin color, and being happier is only possible for particular skin color. Product advertisers should interrogate the market demand and subvert discriminatory norms to give fairness in the message.
References
Dempsey, L. P. (2007). The Daily Show’s expose of political rhetoric. Na.
Excerpts from Chapter 1. Good Reasoning Matters.
Excerpts from Chapter 2. Good Reasoning Matters.
Excerpts from Chapters 3 and 7. Good Reasoning Matters.
Fair and Lovely Skin Cream Ad (In English). (2007).
Fariduddin, T. (2019). Representation of women in fairness cream television advertisements: the case of Fair & Lovely and Olivia Fair & Beautiful.
Karnani, A. (2007). Doing well by doing good—case study:‘Fair & Lovely’whitening cream. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1351-1357.
Rachels, J. (1986). Kantian theory: the idea of human dignity. The elements of moral philosophy, 114-117.
Shevde, N. (2008). All’s fair in love and cream: A cultural case study of Fair & Lovely in India. Advertising & society review, 9(2).