Is L’Oreal worth the women it desires?

[Canis major]

I don’t know, but I’m just putting it out there because I think its bad advertising.

What is bad about it?

The L’Oreal super – “Because I’m worth it.”

Why?

I think its sexist, stereo typical and just as exploitative in its portrayal of societal norms as the Fair and Lovely ads. I firstly question the statement; I get a subject and an object and a proposition to connect them. Result- Who is worth what (replacing the subject and object)?

Obviously its women but what is the object? L’Oreal or is L’Oreal a metaphor for women’s worth and their associated eccentricities(which I mean in the kindest way possible but nonetheless they are eccentricities to half the race).

If the former is true; we then need to ask if can actually compare a bottle’s worth, with self worth of a women? I’m sure the folks at L’Oreal aren’t that dumb to think of it that way (Hey! They have their name keyed in my mac book, word spell check.).

If Metaphor

Then

Ok so that means you are worth beautifying and feeling better in the process. But does that mean that there are some women who aren’t worth it? I’m guessing no. Now the grudge – Does anyone see the connection between the super and the Miss World concept?

If no, then look at the connection that L’Oreal is trying to make between beautifying yourself and self worth, by equating them together.

Do beautiful women have more self worth? Thinking Hilton? – No. Its like keeping stereotypes of gender, caste and misunderstood customs of the past. Just like the Miss World contest that keep stereo types up.

If women stopped believing in dressing up then L’Oreal won’t have a market to sell. People have lived without sun cream in the past and not to say the billions who don’t have access to essential resources for survival.

It’s in their best interest to keep the stereotype alive.

Recent L’Oreal Ad- a very English faux pas?

In of their new series of testimonial ads for their L’Oreal 5 some shit featuring, a fleeting Aishwarya, one of the women blunders and says “ Actually Aishwarya recommends L’Oreal… , off camera as well!”( I might be wrong about the quote but I remember the word ‘as well’. Now the freak I am. I began to question Aishwarya’s brand integrity through the statement. Does Aishwarya double time with brands? Does she actually chew chaini? Does she use something else?

I think we all know the answer, but this is what lousy copy-editing and bad grammar lead to, in questioning of the integrity or brand loyalty of the endorser.

This is just my two cents. I might be wrong and will be happy if some one can correct me.

[amey katkar]

hahahaha ash double timing with brads n chewing chaini,...i aggree with u

[shantyarow]

Canis Major, just thank our lucky stars Kim Kardashian isn't a L'Oreal Brand Ambassador.
We'd have gratuituous shots of her ample derriere, because that's all she's worth!

[basant kumar]

I agree with canis major. The brand proposition is sexist. It reaffirms faith in the fact at women who are dandy and heavly made up are the only ones who are "worth it".

I like the way you have brought up the question here. It's great tha ad pros like us are questioning the basic fundamentals of building brands. Same with men's brands. Projecting a macho image for thums up. Remember the VIP frenchie ad with the man in the underwear saving the woman from a goon?

Can you name some more men's brands who are doing this? I can immediately think of fair and handsome. A category parasite.

[Saumya]

Unfortunately the fact is, most brands sell their products comparng them to someones self worth.

This is true for most luxury & lifestyle brands.

[Priyanka]

I think women like to look good. So LOreal knows that and is targeting such women. There doesnt seem to be anything wrong with that?