Dove Case Analysis

In the ever-evolving landscape of consumer goods, Unilever stands out as a conglomerate that has continuously adapted its brand portfolio to meet shifting market demands and consumer preferences. One such example of Unilever's strategic approach is the consolidation of its brands to enhance its brands’ respective identities and meanings. By streamlining its portfolio, Unilever aims to sharpen the focus on key brands, facilitating a deeper connection with consumers. This case analysis delves into the strategic moves made by Unilever to decrease the number of brands under its umbrella and the impact of these decisions on Dove, one of its most iconic brands.

Dove, a brand synonymous with personal care products, has been a cornerstone of Unilever's portfolio for decades. The evolution of Dove's positioning statement from the 1950s to the 2000s reflects not only changing market trends but also a shift in societal values and consumer preferences. What started as a simple soap brand in the 1950s has transformed into a global symbol of inclusivity, empowerment, and real beauty in the 21st century. By analyzing Dove's journey alongside Unilever's brand consolidation efforts, we can gain valuable insights into how a brand can adapt and thrive in a competitive market landscape while staying true to its core values.

What is a brand? Why does Unilever want fewer of them? How might this relate to brand identity and meaning?

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, a brand is either “a class of goods identified by name as the product of a single firm or manufacturer,” or “a public image, reputation, or identity conceived as something to be marketed or promoted”. The second definition fits better in this situation because Unilever wants fewer brands so they can create more of an identity for themselves and the brands under its umbrella, as well as to be less “checkered” throughout the world’s markets. “It [Unilever] produced ice cream under the Wall’s brand in the U.K. and most parts of Asia, the Algida brand in Italy, Langnese in Germany, Kibon in Brazil…” (Deighton, 2007, pp. 2). Having a plethora of ice cream brands selling similar ice cream in many countries under different brand names is likely confusing and costly, to both Unilever and its consumers. By eliminating some of its brands and selling under a few, more recognizable or established brands, Unilever would be able to use the identities each brand has developed to gain competence in their respective industry, one of the 5 dimensions of brand personality. 

Let’s write a positioning statement for Dove in the 1950s. Write a positioning statement for Dove in 2007.

1950s: For the lady seeking to become the perfect woman, Dove is the brand of cleansing bar that will have you looking and feeling your best because it doesn’t dry out your skin thanks to high levels of natural skin moisturizers!

2000s: For ladies seeking to enhance their own kind of beauty, Dove is the brand of health and beauty products that will magnify your inner beauty, because Dove’s products are effective and innovative thanks to being engineered with true beauty in mind. 

How did Unilever control brand meaning at the time of the case in 2007?

Unilever controlled their brand meaning for Dove by launching The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. This campaign took a different approach to what it meant to be beautiful. In the 1950s, Dove and other brands used functional benefits which they claimed would help women become closer to the epitome of beauty. Whereas, starting in the 2000s, using The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, Dove took a risk and started conveying their point of view to the world. This approach to advertising and brand development aided Dove in taking the first step in carrying out their mission, which is to “make more women feel beautiful every day by broadening the narrow definition of beauty and inspiring them to take great care of themselves” (Deighton, 2007, pp. 4). This helped Dove express more of a personality and belief system which then helped them strengthen the women who were incapable of looking like the former-perfect blonde, skinny, and athletic super model that most brands were using in advertisements.

Let’s spend a little time searching blogs and YouTube to get a sense about what people are saying about Dove today. What does this discussion contribute to the meaning of the brand?

What I found when searching were a few articles addressing a few of Dove’s advertisements. Some of them being the Dove Patches video, limited-edition bottles shaped like various body types, and the sketch-artist video. As always, some of the articles were more on the negative side and some were on the positive side, but that may be exactly the point. A brand advertising their opinion, belief, or point of view is no different than when an individual has a controversial belief and puts it out on their social media. There will always be some some kind of split between those who agree and disagree with others’ point of views, choices, or beliefs. By posting these creative advertisements and conveying their point of view, Dove is trying to create meaning in the products they offer and help customers connect with Dove emotionally. “Meaning is the relevance, significance, or value of an object, action or idea” (Values and Meaning Slides, 16). Dove’s advertisements are emphasizing and shedding light on the issues that have become more relevant, and therefore highlighting their significance. This is another way Dove is acting according to its mission because it attempts to show women that they should be proud of who they are and the way they look.

Do we agree that the internet and social media have "democratized" advertising and branding? Why or why not?

I agree that the internet and social media have democratized advertising and branding because they have made advertising and branding more available and present in our lives. Most people are bound to have a cellphone or laptop connected to the internet which they use to access their social media. Accordingly, companies market and advertise through social media, and by doing so they increase our awareness of their products and services. Additionally, they can hint at the point of view that the company takes on relevant topics possibly persuading the viewer to support their company. 

Do we feel that the shift toward brands having a "point of view" detracts from brands' ability to sell their product? Why or why not?

No. I think when a person is thinking of buying a product and this individual knows the brand’s point of view and agrees with it, it can incentivize them to purchase the product and connect with the company, perhaps establishing a type of bond; whether it be emotional, physical, or a combination of the numerous ways someone can become attached to a brand they admire. Contrarily, a person who is contemplating buying a product who does not agree with the brand’s point of view, may result in a loss of a potential sale. However, I think it is likely that the number of people who agree with a brand’s point of view is greater than the number of people do not agree, so it is overall a good idea for a brand to have a point of view.

Let’s find a recent example of a brand that advertised its point of view and a different example where a brand advertised the functional benefits of the product. What about each of the ads do we find persuasive to consumers? Which of these two advertisements do we think was the most successful? Why?

Point of View Advertisement: 

“Public Goods, Revolutionizing Household Products”

• Save money and the planet by buying from Public Goods

• Persuasive aspects:

• Environmentally friendly

• Natural ingredients

• Low prices (claimed)

• Friendly atmosphere

• Simplistic product designs

Functional Benefits Advertisement: 

“Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 – Reveal Trailer”

• Up to 3x quieter, revolutionary thermal design, world’s fastest graphics memory, etc.

• Persuasive aspects:

• Better specifications which may lead to better performance

• World’s Fastest graphics memory

• Innovative music/atmosphere 

• Sound effects essentially compare product to fighter jets

The Nvidia RTX 3080 advertisement was more successful because there were a lot of videos that talked about how every provider is out of stock. Additionally, the two industries that the two companies are in couldn’t be more different. Since there are so many industries that rely on computing power and components like the the products Nvidia produces, there are a lot of people who are constantly wanting to upgrade their computer setups with the latest technology and the latest computing capabilities. Because of this, every time a PC component manufacturer announces a new version of a product, there are always people who will buy it immediately, no matter the price. 

On the other hand, Public Goods is a relatively new company competing in the highly crowded household products industry, and whose method of becoming profitable is odd (they offer everything a cost price, but you pay a monthly subscription). Additionally, since people hear a lot of advertisements from companies claiming to be environmentally friendly, high quality, and affordable, it is hard for them to distinguish themselves and get the viewer to care or become emotionally invested.