Business Insight Zone

I acknowledge it’s possible that my answer to this question is such a strong NO because I have a 9-year-old daughter of my own. But in general I’m appalled anytime I see the Britneyfication of the tween set, whether it comes from the execrable Bratz dolls (way to go, MGA Entertainment!) or Nair’s new Nair Pretty, “a line aimed at 10- to 15-year-olds,” according to this New York Times story:

Depilatory Market Moves Far Beyond the Short-Shorts Wearers

[...] The product comes in kiwi and peach scents, in packages that show illustrations of doe-eyed teenage girls, and for the first time Nair is marketing directly to middle-schoolers. Ads for Nair Pretty, which are running in magazines like CosmoGirl and Seventeen, make no mention of boys or romance, but rather suggest that the depilatory is a stubble-free path to empowerment.

I almost don’t know where to begin with critiquing this product, but fortunately the wits at Gawker* got to the story ahead of me:

The company is facing the difficult challenge of selling a product to middle schoolers who might not purchase their own depilatory products (they’re aiming the ads at moms), but we salute and wish them well: If we can somehow convince young women to go hairless their entire lives, the mainstreaming of pornography will finally reach critical mass.

Well, precisely. I’m sure Church & Dwight — Nair’s parent company — is staffed by wholesome people, many of whom have kids of their own. And I’m sure that these folks have convinced themselves that (a) there’s a single market of 10- to 15-year-old girls, and (b) all parts of that market should be exposed to the appeal of Nair Pretty.

But neither of these things is true. Observe girls in this age range, and you’ll see the enormous differences — not just physical but social and emotional — between 10- and 13- and 15-year-olds. Not two in a hundred of the younger ones need depilatories, and Nair shouldn’t be marketing to them.

Can they? Of course. It’s a free country, and it’s not like they’re pushing hard drugs. But they should have the better sense not to. I don’t know how you’d split off the 10- to 12-year-olds from the 13- to 15-year-olds, but I’m sure the marketing pros at Church & Dwight can figure it out. And I hope they will.

The NYT article makes another good observation that’s worth addressing in the same vein:

Girls were, of course, agonizing about body hair before Nair got around to developing a product for them. Laser hair removal is the most popular cosmetic procedure for those 18 and under, according to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

Right, and if we’re talking about 17-year-old who wants to permanently remove the bridge of hair joining her eyebrows — or clean up her bikini line — then great. But there’s miles of open water, in the scheme of life, between a girl of age 10 and a woman of age 17. Marketers should leave well enough alone and let girls remain girls.

They’ll grow up soon enough to buy your products, anyway.

~

* Thanks to David for pointing out the Gawker link.