Sure, UNI knew there were disenfranchised consumers who wanted 'in', sure they knew few thought of themselves as beautiful, and to be sure, none of the models used could possibly be confused with 'ugly'. All the same, I'd bet this was more haphazard than anyone would like to admit. I could be wrong!

Thanks — excellent blog, by the way —

Actually what I gather really happened was they ran a single (thigh firming) print ad in germany featuring an outsized model (because they need to have the ample thighs which would benefit from the product). The ad triggered a lot of positive PR about using realistic women rather than size zero models. They took this feedback and ran with it. It was only after they had accidently discovered this that they did that survey, hired Susie Orbach to advise etc.

There are several other lessons in that:
1. be lucky
2. learn from your accidents
3. establish ways your audience/public/media can lead your strategy

They were better organised to capitalise on this/understand it for all the reasons you describe & the timing was perfect.

Also the execution was very important; its not that they were the first to point to the attractriveness of real women – but the presentation of this thought was usually in realistic unstylised settings (akin to 'reality TV') whereas the Dove art direction (white background, model presented like the statue of a goddesss…) which was present in that very first ad signified BEAUTY in a classical (Chanel) mode.

All in all, isnt the messy ambiguous story of this and most hits more Cate Blanchett than we'd care to admit?

Here are some aspects to share with you all which may put a different spin on the interpretation:

1. It's fair to say that unilever and its roster agency where cognizent of the strategic need to tap a cultural vein in order to drive the ambitious goal to make Dove a master brand within Unilever brand portfolio.

2. The 'discovery' path was not nearly as systematic as (at least I feel) is suggested in Grant's post. As it is in the majority of cases, it was a confluence of the right kinds of minds working on the business at a specific point in time that lead to the ultimate realization of territory for a brand whose time had come

3. I'd question the linearity of the thinking and specifically the role of the beauty survey when positioned as the precipitating catalyst to an emergence of brand territory of new found opportunity.

4. As the Dove hair care planner completely uninvolved in the overall masterbrand strategic development, I can tell you that – in engaging women at the same time the brand strategy was being minted, in frank discussions about their relationship with beauty in hair and the role that the highly familiar beauty conventions and stereotypes play – it was not that hard to unearth a sense of alienation and opportunity. That while women acknowledged that the category's definition of beautiful hair was one they willingly aspired to and could achieve with the requisite effort, it was not which they felt deep down left room or space for them.

5. While one may argue that the desire for 'inclusion' was latent potential that encouraged people's bond to the brand ("hey I was excluded from the club before but now this is a club I can belong to…") far more emotionally potent was the recognition of the innate potential that each woman has in the body/skin/hair she was born with done not in an forced acceptance/acquiesing way but in a celebratory manner. No brand had acknowledged this potential before and first mover advantage gave Dove a tremendous head-start.

6. The notion of 'real beauty' had been at the heart of brand's architecture for some time but it had no meaning, or at least there was no understanding among the collective brand team at client and agency as to the significance this idea had to galvanize the brand. It took a convergence of the right people with the serendipity of the prevailing climate of openness to challenging restrictive beauty ideas to make it possible.

I'll stop at this juncture as this blog topic is now two days old, which makes its currency as fresh as yesterday's news.

Here are some aspects to share with you all which may put a different spin on the interpretation:

1. It's fair to say that unilever and its roster agency where cognizent of the strategic need to tap a cultural vein in order to drive the ambitious goal to make Dove a master brand within Unilever brand portfolio.

2. The 'discovery' path was not nearly as systematic as (at least I feel) is suggested in Grant's post. As it is in the majority of cases, it was a confluence of the right kinds of minds working on the business at a specific point in time that lead to the ultimate realization of territory for a brand whose time had come

3. I'd question the linearity of the thinking and specifically the role of the beauty survey when positioned as the precipitating catalyst to an emergence of brand territory of new found opportunity.

4. As the Dove hair care planner completely uninvolved in the overall masterbrand strategic development, I can tell you that – in engaging women at the same time the brand strategy was being minted, in frank discussions about their relationship with beauty in hair and the role that the highly familiar beauty conventions and stereotypes play – it was not that hard to unearth a sense of alienation and opportunity. That while women acknowledged that the category's definition of beautiful hair was one they willingly aspired to and could achieve with the requisite effort, it was not which they felt deep down left room or space for them.

5. While one may argue that the desire for 'inclusion' was latent potential that encouraged people's bond to the brand ("hey I was excluded from the club before but now this is a club I can belong to…") far more emotionally potent was the recognition of the innate potential that each woman has in the body/skin/hair she was born with done not in an forced acceptance/acquiesing way but in a celebratory manner. No brand had acknowledged this potential before and first mover advantage gave Dove a tremendous head-start.

6. The notion of 'real beauty' had been at the heart of brand's architecture for some time but it had no meaning, or at least there was no understanding among the collective brand team at client and agency as to the significance this idea had to galvanize the brand. It took a convergence of the right people with the serendipity of the prevailing climate of openness to challenging restrictive beauty ideas to make it possible.

I'll stop at this juncture as this blog topic is now two days old, which makes its currency as fresh as yesterday's news.

Back in the 1970s, looking "natural" was the big thing in cosmetics. (Rhoda Morgenstern even joked about it on the Mary Tyler Moore show.) By 1981, anyone pitching "natural" was perceived as "dumpy" and "no fun." It was time for costuming and aritificiality.

Nice list.

You could add…

8. BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO TAKE RISKS

Unilever took a lot of risks- please consider they also make Calvin Klein fragrances.

Ed