L'Oreal gets a Millennial makeover.

The iconic L'Oreal tagline - "I don't mind paying more, because I'm worth it," was the stuff of advertising industry lore. 

While its original intent was to justify the brand's premium pricing strategy, what made it special was its reaffirmation of female self-worth.  According to McCann-Erickson collective memory, in 1971, a rare female copywriter (her name unfortunately has not been remembered) who was rediscovering her own self-worth through therapy came up with it.  It spoke to the Silent Generation women who regretted their own lack of choices and were now encouraging their daughters to take advantage of the opportunities they never had.

Reflecting a new reality, in the 90's the line morphed into "Because you're worth it," taking a more supportive stance at a time when women were starting to work in greater numbers, and the focus was on helping each other to navigate this strange new world.

These days, Millennials take the fact that woman work for granted.  They are more diverse, and potentially more inclusive, so perhaps the new tagline - "Because we are all worth it," will speak to them. 

Although I wonder if they really could use a shot of self-esteem more, since social media seems to be destroying it.

Faw, L. (2017, June 21)  Why L'Oreal Paris Tweeked Its Iconic Tagline.  mediapost.com.  Retrieved June 23, 2017, from  https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/303220/why-loreal-paris-tweeked-its-iconic-tagline.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=103874&hashid=pWUJIUyQGMyJVccRQy8fKxuJEXY

L'Oreal wants you to get your moles checked.

Most of us should be going to the dermatologist once a year to have our moles checked, and we should be encouraging our loved ones to do the same, as most skin cancer is treatable if caught early.

This new global campaign, sponsored by L'Oreal brand LaRoche-Posay encourages everyone to become "skin checkers."  They're hoping the video will become viral of course.  Take a look and see what you think.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKOsUXsXOiQ

Will you forward this video to a friend?  Will you make a doctor's appointment today?  Will you buy L'Oreal products with sunscreen?

Mahoney, S. (2015, March 19)  L'Oreal Spotlights Dalmatians For Skin Cancer Push.  mediapost.com.  retrieved March 20, 2015, from

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/246013/loreal-spotlights-dalmatians-for-skin-cancer-push.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=81186

 

You mean that skin cream won’t make me look 10 years younger?

Cosmetics and skin cream companies have long sold hope in a bottle.  And while I have recently found myself pondering whether or not anti-aging creams work, and if so how, I just couldn’t bring myself to believe that they really did.

Now after years of ignoring cosmetic claims, probably because they thought we were all smart enough to realize using these products was not going to turn us into supermodels, the FDA has fired a warning shot at Lancome.  Apparently they have gone a step too far with claims like “boosts the activity of genes and stimulates the production of youth proteins,” which the agency perceives to be a drug claim.  (Forbes, 2012)

Well.  It’s a start.  Last year the U.K. banned a couple of L’Oreal ads featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington for overuse of photoshop retouching.  And before that, there was the mascara ad featuring Eva Longoria wearing false eyelashes.  It certainly made me wonder why the U.S. wasn’t taking a closer look at these ads. (Gibson, 2011)

But let’s take a moment to consider how sad is it that even these extraordinary women need help to look the way they do in the media.  I think it’s time to take another look at Dove’s Evolution ad, and pay a little more attention to misleading beauty product claims.  Don’t you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c87AC4Le5Y&feature=fvst

Forbes, T. (2012, September 12)  FDA Crackdown On Lancome Claims Signals Shift.  mediapost.com.  Retrieved September 12, 2012, from

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/182841/fda-crackdown-on-lancome-claims-signals-shift.html

Gibson, M. (2011, July 28)  U.K. Bans Two Retouched Makeup Ads For Being ‘Misleading’. time.com.  Retrieved September 12, 2012, from

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/28/u-k-bans-two-retouched-makeup-ads-for-being-misleading/

Is it time to ban retouching in cosmetics ads?

7/28/11

The Dove Evolution spot does a great job showing that even two hours of hair and make-up isn’t enough to avoid who knows how many hours of retouching in order to create the perfect women we see in most beauty ads. Which begs the question, are these ads misleading?

Cosmetic companies have always taken the stance that beauty advertising is aspirational. And surely no normal woman thinks there are enough beauty products in the world to turn her into a supermodel. But is it fair to show a digitally enhanced result when product efficacy is a key selling point? Personally, I’ve held back on trying any number of new wrinkle creams because I don’t believe that they actually work. And showing me a photo of an abnormally beautiful women, retouched or not, doesn’t help convince me.

But, in the UK, advertising watchdogs are taking notice. This week comes word that L’Oreal has been forced to pull ad campaigns featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington due to complaints lodged with the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority). To quote the ASA: “on the basis of the evidence we had received we could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated what effect the product could achieve.” (Sweney, 2011)

So my question is why is the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), the US advertising watchdog, silent on this issue? Are we just assuming that people will exercise common sense when they view these ads? Or should we be holding advertisers to higher standards as they appear to be doing across the pond? What do you think?

Sweney, M. (2011, July 27). L’Oreal’s Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington ad campaigns banned. guardian.co.uk. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/27/loreal-julia-roberts-ad-banned

Do sponsorships deliver enough value?

3/23/09

As we sort through the current economic crisis all media is subject to evaluation and possible elimination. One of the most difficult things to measure properly is the value of a long term sponsorship.

After over a decade of participation, L’Oreal decided this year to end its sponsorship of the Academy Awards, which had previously been one of the pillars of its communications plan. (“L’Oreal, Other Sponsors Leave the 2009 Oscars Stranded”, 2009)

On the flip side, last week VW announced that it had renewed and expanded its sponsorship agreement with Major League Soccer. The 4 year pact includes in-stadium signage during national broadcasts, presence at MLS special events and player appearances, and sponsorship of grass roots initiatives like MLS Futbolito!, a four-on-four traveling tournament for amateur players.

They will continue as presenting sponsor of the D.C. United franchise, with front jersey logo placement, and will increase their soccer media buys with ESPN, Fox Soccer Channel and Univision. Terms of the deal were not announced. (Crupi, 2009)


What do you think? Do you notice the signs in the stadium and the logos on the jerseys when you watch sports on television? What about in person? Who do you think is the primary audience for soccer in the US? Do you think the sponsorship will give VW significant leverage with them? Or do you think they would have been better off spending the money elsewhere?


(2009). L’Oreal, Other Sponsors Leave the 2009 Oscars Stranded. news.softpedia.com. Retrived March 23, 2009 from
http://news.softpedia.com/news/L-Oreal-Other-Sponsors-Leave-the-2009-Oscars-Stranded-104854.shtml

Crupi, A. (2009, March 16). VW receives in-stadium placement, including signage during national broadcasts. mediaweek.com. Retrived March 23, 2009 from
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/strategy/e3ia9c64386847182ffedcec09f99f4af59