Business Blog: Hoover’s 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.

Just a quick note to point you to this retrospective assessment of the Body Shop founder, who died Monday, written by WorldChanging’s Emily Gertz:

Anita Roddick’s Green Legacy

Today it’s hardly unusual to think about companies’ social and environmental policies alongside their profit-and-loss statements — which, as Gertz points out, is the essence of the “triple bottom line” analysis that is common today, but which was groundbreaking when Roddick started using it decades ago.

Roddick could be a polarizing figure, which was perhaps inevitable given her high-impact personality and her uncompromising stands, both on issues dear to her heart (which alienated her from many old-line capitalists) and on turning a profit (which alienated her from some purist environmentalists). But it seems clear that her innovations will continue to spread through the world of business, far beyond the little cosmetics outfit she founded in 1976.

As I write this, the lead runners are approaching the finish line of the death-defying 135-mile Kiehl’s Badwater Ultramarathon. Let’s break down the name:

• “Kiehl’s”: As you will have guessed, the main race sponsor is Kiehl’s Since 1851 LLC. (Why do I love it that they put “Since 1851″ in their name?) Now owned by L’Oréal, Kiehl’s has been a purveyor of high-end lotions, soaps, shampoos, and the like since . . . well, you know since when.
• “Badwater”: Read: “Death Valley” — because this race starts in the furnace-like depths of Death Valley before climbing up the slopes of Mt. Whitney. Just for fun, you understand, and to pursue that whole “What are the limits of human capability?” thing.
• “Ultramarathon”: Anything longer than the regulation 26.2-mile marathon distance. The most common lengths are 50 kilometers (about 31 miles), 50 miles, 100 kilometers, and . . . wait for it . . . 100 miles. But the folks who put Badwater together, they weren’t interested in a mere 100 miles, so they bumped it on up.

Anyway, after all that astounding heat — although it was a relatively cool 112 degrees Fahrenheit when the race started yesterday — not to mention fluid loss, blisters, and so on, I’m sure the participants will welcome having some of Kiehl’s finest emollients lavished upon their suffering bodies. In that sense, maybe this niche event is a good fit for a sponsorship from a niche brand like Kiehl’s. In a way, I admire the will and skill of these ultra-long-distance runners . . . and then in another way I think they’re just plain crazy.

But good luck to them! If you care to, you can track the racers’ progress here.