Why it's wrong to remove Fair from Fair and Lovely

I'm going to start this article by saying how HUL has got it all wrong with their latest announcement of removing the word Fair from Fair and Lovely and end by contradicting myself and saying how they've actually got it all right.

HUL has got it all wrong by dropping the word Fair. To really make a difference they should have dropped the word Lovely. Fair or dark skin is not the problem, the problem is the notion that one is better or more beautiful than the other. Mind you, while here in India we may think of fairness as an ideal of beauty, in other countries people spend hours and lots of money to get that perfect tan. Notions of beauty differ in every culture and due to your culture (or whatever other personal or external reasons) if you want to temporarily or permanently change the color of your skin that is totally up to you. By all means, please go ahead.

However, the problem lies in the advertising communication that implies a false emotional benefit linked to the functional benefit of a fairness cream. Eg: apply the fairness cream -> become fair -> gain confidence -> win the dance competition (obviously surrounded by darker skinned out-of-the-spotlight sulking girls). The same false narratives can be seen across several products: spray deo -> win over women, drink soda -> jump across valley, use toothpaste -> win tennis match, wear shiny white clothes -> get the job, grow long hair -> save the orphanage etc. etc. etc. If only life was that simple!

In all the above examples the missing link is confidence. All these ads imply that you lack within yourself what you need to succeed and using such and such product will help you to gain that self-confidence to win in the big bad world. However, the attempts to draw such absurd connections become indigestible beyond a point. By saying that one thing leads to another it is also implied and often directly indicated through visual cues and other creative mechanisms (because brands rarely believe in the art of subtlety though they would like to think otherwise) that the product is responsible for the end result to the exclusion of all other factors. While the product is called Fair and Lovely, what they are really telling you is that Fair IS Lovely (to the exclusion of any other skin color). All advertising communication is essentially to establish this connection and causality between a physical attribute (fairness) and an emotional feeling (lovely). And of course, once you love yourself you can win whatever challenge you face in the ad film. After years of conditioning on the ideals of beauty and being constantly reminded of what you lack, for some it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy to claim experiencing the benefits as advertised. That's a big win for such brands who happily convince themselves that their product is indeed for the good of society.

It would actually be much better for consumers to have the Fair word retained. It is a direct functional benefit, states what the product delivers directly, and makes it simple to identify for someone looking for a skin fairness solution. But imagine the product being called Fairness Cream, Fairness Balm, or Fairer You or whatever. Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Sounds bland. That's because the dubious emotional benefit is missing from the name.

As mentioned above, while fairness by itself is okay, Lovely is where things get subjective. Lovely is an emotional benefit and brands spend years and tons of money to move their products from the functional level to the emotional level (see diagram below). Fair and Lovely is right at the top, promising aspirational benefits.

Fairness is a functional benefit, feeling lovely is an emotional benefit, and winning that big competition is the aspirational benefit. And after years of building the brand slowly and steadily to climb to the top of the pyramid, do you think they will just drop Lovely? No way.

And this is why I say that HUL has got it right. From a PR perspective they have played to the gallery and responded to the current sentiment and years of ongoing protest by finally removing the word Fair. But that's just on the surface. From a marketing and business perspective they have retained Lovely, which has far more value than Fair. So they have the freedom to change Fair to some other less controversial skin benefit of the product but that is a short term solution. What isn't controversial today could become controversial tomorrow and vice-versa. Instead the name could change to something like Be Lovely, You Are Lovely, Hey, Lovely! or whatever, with the packaging still showing the skin color changing from dark to fair if that continues to be the main product benefit. "Lovely" will still be there and your mind will be aided with other cues to connect the dots - "Hey, we didn't say or suggest anything, you understood it like that."

So, it is a good business decision but don't be fooled into thinking that it is the right decision.