<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hey Dove! Talk to YOUR parent!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/hey-dove-talk-to-your-parent-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/hey-dove-talk-to-your-parent-2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:16:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jklein0414</title>
		<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/hey-dove-talk-to-your-parent-2/#comment-15621</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jklein0414]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=8499#comment-15621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I completely agree with this blog post. Though I love Dove&#039;s ads and think that their intentions are great, I think it&#039;s extremely ironic that Dove and Axe are owned by the same company. Axe&#039;s advertisements are everything that Dove&#039;s Campaign for Real Beauty fights against. The two contradict each other, and that ultimately looks bad on the parent company. 

In addition, Dove is not a beauty product company. It&#039;s merely soap. I don&#039;t understand why companies that sell actual beauty products won&#039;t take a hint from Dove&#039;s intentions. They continue to promote their products on stick-think, emaciated models that look horrible. The problem starts in young girls, and though Dove is trying to help, these young girls are not looking at the Dove commercials. They are looking at everything else- they are looking at the advertisements with their favorite celebrities and picking up the magazines that interest them the most. It&#039;s inevitable- young teenage girls are going to find a way to realize that society&#039;s definition of the perfect body is a stick figure. Dove&#039;s campaign is directed towards parents yes, because parents are the ones who need to guide their children and help them to realize that society&#039;s definition is not reality.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completely agree with this blog post. Though I love Dove&#8217;s ads and think that their intentions are great, I think it&#8217;s extremely ironic that Dove and Axe are owned by the same company. Axe&#8217;s advertisements are everything that Dove&#8217;s Campaign for Real Beauty fights against. The two contradict each other, and that ultimately looks bad on the parent company. </p>
<p>In addition, Dove is not a beauty product company. It&#8217;s merely soap. I don&#8217;t understand why companies that sell actual beauty products won&#8217;t take a hint from Dove&#8217;s intentions. They continue to promote their products on stick-think, emaciated models that look horrible. The problem starts in young girls, and though Dove is trying to help, these young girls are not looking at the Dove commercials. They are looking at everything else- they are looking at the advertisements with their favorite celebrities and picking up the magazines that interest them the most. It&#8217;s inevitable- young teenage girls are going to find a way to realize that society&#8217;s definition of the perfect body is a stick figure. Dove&#8217;s campaign is directed towards parents yes, because parents are the ones who need to guide their children and help them to realize that society&#8217;s definition is not reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/hey-dove-talk-to-your-parent-2/#comment-15545</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=8499#comment-15545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Jon

Admittedly one can&#039;t rule out self interest on the part of Dove/Unilever; it would be remarkable if sales figures hadn&#039;t crossed their minds at some point.  However, the fact that there is market share to be gained by acting as if you care is surely a good thing.  It means there is already an economic environment in which companies should market at least some of their products as if they had scruples and we should expect a certain amount of competition to this effect in the coming years.  My point is that attacking Dove/Unilever might not be the best way of achieving a healthier cosmetics industry; their message might be clumsy but it is going in the right direction.  For example, in the UK the majority of eggs sold are now free-range/non-battery reared.  No one who understands farming thinks that all these chickens have the best existence as non-battery farming brings its own problems but everyone agrees that we have moved a long way in the right direction.  Consumer pressure means that even battery farmed chickens now have a more pleasant existence than they once had thanks to larger cages etc.  Surely we can use consumer pressure in the cosmetics industry as the thin end of the wedge.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jon</p>
<p>Admittedly one can&#8217;t rule out self interest on the part of Dove/Unilever; it would be remarkable if sales figures hadn&#8217;t crossed their minds at some point.  However, the fact that there is market share to be gained by acting as if you care is surely a good thing.  It means there is already an economic environment in which companies should market at least some of their products as if they had scruples and we should expect a certain amount of competition to this effect in the coming years.  My point is that attacking Dove/Unilever might not be the best way of achieving a healthier cosmetics industry; their message might be clumsy but it is going in the right direction.  For example, in the UK the majority of eggs sold are now free-range/non-battery reared.  No one who understands farming thinks that all these chickens have the best existence as non-battery farming brings its own problems but everyone agrees that we have moved a long way in the right direction.  Consumer pressure means that even battery farmed chickens now have a more pleasant existence than they once had thanks to larger cages etc.  Surely we can use consumer pressure in the cosmetics industry as the thin end of the wedge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
