Advertisements around the world, depict culture norms and help dissect gender stereotypes. Across many countries, adverts are used to reinforce gender roles along with the product representation. Fair n Lovely is a brand which comes under the umbrella of Unilever and recently in 2020 changed their name to Glow n Lovely in essence to not restrict them to “fair” skin tones. Do we truly believe this? Considering the women in their adverts are still the same, they have a fairly fair skin tone with perfect symmetric features and no blemishes on their skin. How can we believe their statement when their actions are not in line with their statements?
The question is why the shift in name? Renaming the brand, emphasises on how the brand is more focused on radiance and provides a more holistic way to make your skin glowy which is a better indicator of skin health. The shift could also highlight that the brand is trying to be more inclusive and accepting of Pakistani skin tones. This could mean that Unilever wants to expand their horizon and try to cater other skin tones. Or is this a marketing strategy? Considering how the company even after changing the name of the brand has still reinforced the “fairness” stereotype by hiring models or actresses who are fair. So are they trying to change their brand image or earn additional revenue from this strategy?
Lastly, these kind of adverts use this concept of before and after narratives which show how the model’s life changes after using the cream, primarily associating “fairness with success” but there is no correlation established. Since the target media are women of all age groups from teens to adults, this message can be highly misguiding and can lead to women feeling uncomfortable in their own skin tones. These adverts usually abide with cultural and societal norms, they promote colourism and discrimination based on skin tones. Companies should know better and understand how their brand not only is an image of them but also becomes a part of the identity of their consumer.
The re-branding of Fair and Lovely to Glow and Lovely is quite a popular topic that has received a lot of backlash all for the right reasons. I remember back in 2020 I wrote a research report on Colorism and internalized Racism where I included an example of Zubaida Apa's whitening soap. The advertisement displayed people from different parts of India who looked tired, upset, lethargic, and overall unhappy with their dark complexion. The use of color scheme was also quite interesting as these people were placed in dark and gloomy environments. Suddenly Zubaida Apa shows up into their lives, hands them the soap, they apply it to their daily skin care routine. Theres this transformation taking place where their complexions are lighter, they are happier and were to be seen embracing their day to day tasks full of energy. Zubaida aapa talks about how this soap is used to add a glow but in reality it is a skin whitening product that promotes Colorism and discrimination against darker skin tones
I believe that the change in name was primarily to deal with all the criticism that the company was facing because of its problematic take on darker skin tones. Honestly nothing substantial has changed, it’s still a fairness cream being used in the same way it was once used by people and still promoting colorism.
I truly believe nothing has acutally changed and the product as well as the marketing remains as problematic as ever, the images and even the contents and plot of the ads have remained the same, if changing a name is all it takes to undo colorism then unilever is a magician
I enjoyed reading this article! I completely agree with your perspective on how a brand should recognize that it's not just about an image but establishing a connection with consumers. While changing the name of Fair and Lovely might have seemed like a step from the brand, in reality, it fell short. There was no proactive effort to fully support the idea that 'skin tone doesn't matter'; the models in the ads remained the same. Mere changes in name to reflect a shift in ideology are insufficient. Brands should understand the need to thoroughly engage with and comprehend their stance, making sincere efforts to establish a meaningful presence in the market.
Great post! It is important to recognize and challenge the absurdity of whitening cream ads in Pakistan and advocate for a more inclusive and diverse representation of beauty. Promoting acceptance, self-love, and embracing one's natural skin tone can help counteract the negative effects of these ads and foster a more inclusive society that celebrates beauty in all its forms. The real question is can ideas about skin color that have been maintained and reinforced for centuries be altered by a name change?
I think that while a name change such as this one is arguably another example of virtue signaling that might make a viewer roll their eyes, it shouldn't be completely dismisses. A shift in branding and messaging does indicate some level of recognition and acknowledgement of the problematic aspects of the previous name. However, at the end of the day the product is... a skin-lightening cream. Changing the name doesn't change the purpose of the cream; the product inherently promotes colorism.
The solution that would be a step towards getting rid of colorist ideas is to simply get rid of the product - of course, that won't happen. 'Glow and Lovely' still sells very well, and a company with a profit incentive would most likely never give that up. The practical solution is to reduce demand by dismantling deeply rooted biases and raising awareness about the harmful effects of colorism, which will be a slow process.
Since childhood, the idea of fairness creams have been a source of discomfort for me, especially fair and lovely with their implicit suggestion that a woman only becomes desirable when she has a certain complexion and fits the conventional beauty standards that has always been reinforced with their advertisements. The change in the name now is nothing more than just a shallow marketing gimmick after years of backlash and critique. Even after this change, the conotations have not changed, which is clearly evident from how people still call it fair and lovely. Famous celebrities endorse such creams which can be damaging to young girls who not only see advertisements for this but also their ideal celebrity condoning it. I remember Nadia jamil distanced herself from samina Peerzada's talk show as she realised that it was sponsored by fair and lovely as it went against her principles. Do you think that other actors taking such steps can force the company to go for alternatives?