L'Oreal Found Guilty of Racism.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

I wonder, though, when you do actually have a particular product generally aimed at one ethnicity, like say products designed especially for African American hair, like the Cream of Nature line for example, would it be racist to reject white models?

So products like Prell and Wella Balsam are marketed to African American women who model use of those products?

Only Pantene has specifically formulated products for any minority haircare. Only Covergirl products have actually diversified in its marketting campaign. Maybelline barely has color. And every now and then does Revelon do a thing or two. However, ever since the 1980's since Revelon said stuff to the African American community, no African American hairstylists will noticeably use or purchase their products in the form of an active boycott.

So, use of Afro Sheen owned formerly owned by Ultra but now owned by Maybelline, rarely has caucasian models in Ebony or Jet advertising their products. In fact, I do not see much Afro-Sheen advertisements. I see more Bonner Brothers and Pink.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

So products like Prell and Wella Balsam are marketed to African American women who model use of those products?

Only Pantene has specifically formulated products for any minority haircare. Only Covergirl products have actually diversified in its marketting campaign. Maybelline barely has color. And every now and then does Revelon do a thing or two. However, ever since the 1980's since Revelon said stuff to the African American community, no African American hairstylists will noticeably use or purchase their products in the form of an active boycott.

So, use of Afro Sheen owned formerly owned by Ultra but now owned by Maybelline, rarely has caucasian models in Ebony or Jet advertising their products. In fact, I do not see much Afro-Sheen advertisements. I see more Bonner Brothers and Pink.

I didn't mean to suggest that the marketing focus only ran one way or to accuse companies that marketed to African Americans of anything that whites weren't doing too. I chose the case of Cream of Nature because there is a tighter connection between the benefits of the product and the hair type it's used on (although I think it'd actually be good for a lot of white people's hair too).

When you start talking about how Prell and Wella Balsam, Revlon, L'Oreal do things, how they market the product may not actually be a reflection of the needs of the people buying it. Think about how few shampoo ads ever include men although most of them are using shampoo too.

It's only been relatively recently that I can remember seeing ads addressing differences in hair texture for "white" hair. For most of my life, one would have thought that only white people who needed shampoo had hair like Cindy Crawford.

My point I guess, as much as I had one, is that although what L'Oreal did in this case was clearly discriminatory in terms of well qualified sales people being turned away from employment unrelated to race, cosmetic marketing is likely to be more racially focused than most product lines. Does that make this kind of advertising also racist and discriminatory? Or is it acceptable for Cover Girl to just sell to whites if that's the business they want to be in and it's profitable?

What was it that Revlon said to trigger the boycott?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

I didn't mean to suggest that the marketing focus only ran one way or to accuse companies that marketed to African Americans of anything that whites weren't doing too. I chose the case of Cream of Nature because there is a tighter connection between the benefits of the product and the hair type it's used on (although I think it'd actually be good for a lot of white people's hair too).

When you start talking about how Prell and Wella Balsam, Revlon, L'Oreal do things, how they market the product may not actually be a reflection of the needs of the people buying it. Think about how few shampoo ads ever include men although most of them are using shampoo too.

It's only been relatively recently that I can't remember ever seeing ads addresses differences in hair texture for "white" hair. For most of my life, one would have thought that only white people who needed shampoo had hair like Cindy Crawford.

Thank you for your explanation. The fact that there actually ARE products for people who have "textured" hair to clean it is amazing overall. Most of the time, people with natural textures have been ignored and were essentially unmarketable.

Moreover, we know this is the "cosmoceutical" industry. It is all about looks, fashion and trends. When it is trendy to have silky smooth blonded hair, guess what, folks will buy it, weave it, and straighten their hair to be that way. But, when folks have shaved heads--guess what?!?

My point I guess, as much as I had one, is that although what L'Oreal did in this case was clearly discriminatory in terms of well qualified sales people being turned away from employment unrelated to race, cosmetic marketing is likely to be more racially focused than most product lines. Does that make this kind of advertising also racist and discriminatory? Or is it acceptable for Cover Girl to just sell to whites if that's the business they want to be in and it's profitable?

What was it that Revlon said to trigger the boycott?

In the past, advertising has been one the most sexist, racist and discriminatory kind of business. People have studied these psychological effects on women and girls. The definition of beauty, body image and femininity by beauty industry advertising is what numerous women's groups fight constantly. Only Dove has been the first to step up to that corporate responsibility. And Self magazine closely helps women improve their self-esteem. What L'Oreal did is wrong was be biased against people in its own country who are of color. I think it was due to ethnicity that had to do with the French preoccupation of various ethnic groups. The issue is, the French would rarely be overtly racist to you or me for that matter, but they will be to fellow Africans and Asians because I have seen it personally.

Also, I think that these kinds of businesses would be stupid if they ignored ethnic diversity. Beauty product catering to diverse cultures is a $2 billion dollar industry. If a make up producer does not get into this factor, they would be totally losing that market. The biggest market is the Asian one. Mary Kay Cosmetics is already way ahead of the curve. The next one is MAX, Clinque and maybe Perscriptives. Most of the companies are scrambling to get the undertones correctly. But, Mary Kay sells a mixed colored blend yourself powdered the foundation... Most ethnic groups are snorting this stuff up because it very difficult to get the right blend. Stuff can be purchased off the shelf, but it hard to get it right.

The STORY I heard was that Revlon said that their Realistic Revlon relaxer products are far superior than any other relaxer products made by anyone. They tried to corner the market on relaxers, but that pissed of the African American beauticians that use the products. Personally, as someone that uses the products, I like "Hawaiian relaxers", then Affirm products and Mizani. The last one I like is Realistic. But the way my hair feels after the "Hawaiian" and maybe the Mizani that is ironically owned by L'Oreal, has worked the best on my hair.