I commented on this in another thread. They are obnoxious and seriously overplayed, and I wonder if the disdain they generate has affected their sales. We’re talking, just about the worst out there.
That being said, stupid as the ads are I don’t get all the hate for the product. How is putting deodorant on one body part weirder than any other? A lot of people - not singling out anyone here - get almost defensive about it. The OP (well at least the title) is about the ads yet there are just as many comments about inanity of the product itself. People seem to have strong feelings where body deodorant is concerned.
To me, it sounds like it’s about selling more deodorant. Like, I’ve heard of people using deodorant for their whole body anyways. But the current stuff isn’t officially for that, so they created a product that makes it explicit.
Is this even something new? I’ve not seen the ads. Is it really anything other than the same stuff you rub or spray under your arms? Or the various powders that have long existed?
Many years ago, MAD Magazine published “A Mad Look at Madison Avenue.” In it, one of the ad executives was promoting a campaign for elbow deodorant. “But people don’t worry about stinky elbows” (paraphrasing). “The will once we tell them stinky elbows can offend.”
These are all elbow deodorant.
Someone – I think it was Gloria Steinem – reacted to the then-new trend for feminine hygiene sprays by saying, “I never heard of anyone lying on the floor overcome by vaginal fumes.”
I can easily ignore the ads. I cannot easily ignore the message to the masses that everyone needs a whole body deodorant. If someone smells like ass , swiping a scented deodorant bar over the anus is not the answer. These products are not intended for sensitive tissues. Maybe it will help those chronically stinky feet, where daily washing, a change of socks and clean shoes does not. Air out the tootsies, air out the groin change out of sweaty clothes etc etc.
That’s really the thing- the marketing people have a product, and in essence, they’re trying to gin up a problem so that they can sell it.
I mean, five years ago I didn’t find myself being stinky if I performed my usual shower per day and used my usual anti-perspirant. And I wager most people didn’t either. Maybe some parts weren’t so fresh by the end of the day, but generally nobody is going to smell those without sticking their nose up in there either.
But along comes the Lume commercials implying that we all stink out loud everywhere like that, and apparently a lot of people don’t apply rational thought to it, and feel self-conscious about it, so they go buy Lume to deodorize those parts. And the big boys see Lume doing well, so they produce their own versions of the same thing, and apply even more marketing muscle to try and convince everyone that we all need this stuff.
If you take a real shower with soap or body wash (they’re functionally equivalent; body wash is essentially the same as liquid hand soap, and nobody complains about that not working), you won’t generally smell bad by the time you take your next shower, except maybe in your armpits, and that’s why we wear deodorant/anti-perspirant.
I personally just use soap (usu. Irish Spring or Dial) and water on my body (or body wash, if my sons really want some particular kind, but I find it uneconomical vs. bar soap) and shampoo on my hair. I alternate Mitchum unscented gel antiperspirant with one of those rock deodorants (aluminum alum), because using the Mitchum every day makes my underarms itch like crazy. I shower in the morning because that extra hot water and soap makes shaving a lot easier versus waking up in the morning and shaving without having showered first.
I will say this though; using those anywhere deodorants in places other than your underarms does cut down on the funk during a 2-3 day camping trip where you don’t have a chance to take a shower. Doesn’t help my greasy hair though, and that’s usually what really bugs me.
If you listen closely, it’s “would recommend”, which is a whole lot shadier.
Not that journalists and ad copy people are the same thing, but once I was quoted for a newspaper article about people graduating with MBAs (that got picked up by the AP wire!), and what I said was something like this: “Well, in my class of about 50, nobody has said they’ve found a job yet, but that may be because they’re embarrassed to admit it when nobody else has admitted to it either. I really don’t know if anyone else has a job or not.”
That translated to “And at graduation, no one in his class of about 40- not even the best students had a job.” Which wasn’t really what I said; I said that nobody had fessed up to having a job, which wasn’t the same thing at all.
I suspect the same thing goes on all the time with advertising copy.
I don’t know about false advertising, but the actual background text was more than likely something like this:
“Most gynecologists do not recommend deodorant for anything but underarms, but if there was a pronounced odor issue, 4 out of 5 gynecologists would recommend whole body deodorant as a possible first solution.”
Or rather “…4 out of 5 gynecologists would recommend whole body deodorant as a possible second or third solution, after using soap and learning how to wash your pubes properly.”
I might be misconstruing the usage of “would” in this instance. Maybe they did conduct a survey of 5 gynos and 4 said “Sure, why not?” “Would,” to me, says “We’ll, we’re sure they would, if we got off our butts and made an honest survey.” Ain’t semantics great?
Either way, the “would” makes it the same sort of hypothetical that people often don’t quite get. It’s like the Trident "Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.” tagline, where the idea is that there’s this weirdo fifth dentist out there, and most recommend Trident (one of the only mass-market sugarless brands at the time).
In fact, it’s more like all five say they’d rather nobody chew gum, and only in the situation for people who already chew gum, four out of five say that they should chew sugarless gum, and the fifth recommends that they stop.
Both the Secret whole-body deodorant and Trident both imply that this is something that medical professionals recommend, when in fact it’s probably something they don’t recommend, but if pushed, most will say that it’s a non-harmful option.
They bother me, but I know they shouldn’t. They’re just embelmatic of the fact that societal acceptance of what is and is not advertised on TV shifts over the years. Decades ago a cigarette brand sponsored half-hour sitcoms. No one dared show a toilet on TV. Now tobacco smoking isn’t allowed on TV, and we have cartoon bears taking shits right in front of us.
Wait, is this Mando stuff for your whole body? Including your head? Why bother, if you’re never going to remove your helmet around other people anyway?
Well first off smell like ya wanna. For women it’s a little trickier and I do like Lume etc. That said I agree. If I’m going to be intimate I’m going to shower up front. For me the Lume/same sh** different name is just a way daily to feel fresh, non icky and clean.
It’s really not hard to find a way to keep reasonably clean. With just some kinda soap and water.
When you get dirty and sweaty take a shower.
Mitigate your clothing/shoe odor best you can.
Unless people are obviously avoiding you, kids are poking fun at you and grandma has a hankie to her face, you’re probably ok.
I guess there’s maladies that cause odor that can be addressed with a doctor, of course.
It’s not the seemingly easy ways to fix this. It’s the ads. The companies inventing these problems. The populace all deciding they stink to everyone.
This will pass and we’ll see another group of ads by unscrupulous companies who want us to buy more crap.
(And thank heaven we are not Victorian. Or pioneers. Or pirates )
