PO Box 26609
Richmond VA 23261-6609
Attention – ChapStick Consumer Relations
To Whom It May Concern:
I have used your brand for 25years, ever since my mom put my very first tube of ChapStick in the bib pocket of my snowpants before heading out for an afternoon of sledding. I can remember feeling very grown up, and ever since I have had a tube or six of Cherry ChapStick in a pocket or arm’s reach. I have used your brand on my own children, and they know to swipe their lips before heading out to play during our chilly Wisconsin winters. That’s all over now.
ChapStick, we’re through. My family will not be using your brand again. I tried to tell you why on Facebook, but you deleted my comment. You deleted the comments of many, many women who spoke out against your objectifying ad ”Where Do Lost ChapSticks Go?” prominently featuring the back end of a woman bent over a couch. In fact, before you deleted it, the photo file uploaded to your page by some intern was labeled “Ass”. I do not support companies that use the objectified body parts of women to sell their product. I do not support a company that deletes the voices of its female customers, but allow sexist and sexual comments from men to remain. I refuse support a company that disrespects its female customers, both in its advertising and social media outreach. As a woman, a mother, and a small business owner those actions offend me.
Why you paid an advertising agency big dollars to use a woman’s “Ass” to sell me a product I put on my lips seems a bit off. Why you chose to go with the ad that sexualizes a woman and gives off that low budget, basement porny-feeling right at the beginning of the winter season when every parent across America is in need a good balm to put on her kid’s lips seems to me as though you don’t understand that women control 86% of consumer spending. There isn’t much in question about your ad – the odd pose, butt in the air, the skin tight jeans, the sexy blowing hair – it is all a mind-numbingly sophomoric use of implied sex to sell a product. The thing is, for everyone who uses (used) ChapStick, we know that those little tubes go missing all of the time, and there were dozens of other very clever ways for you to depict this. But you didn’t. You chose to go with “Ass”.
So I no longer go with ChapStick. This weekend I spent $16.00 on four tubes of Burt’s Bees and I love my new balm. I’ll be a Burt’s customer now, because I don’t have to worry about them sexualizing and degrading me or my daughter, nor reinforcing to my husband and son that women are nothing more than sex objects. That is simply not good enough for my family, and I do not accept it.
Sincerely,
Melissa Wardy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE: Because ChapStick is deleting voices from Facebook and does not have a Twitter account, should you choice to join you voice and speak out against this, I encourage a mailed letter, or add your signature to the change.org petition:
“Turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step towards justifying violence against that person.”- Jean Kilbourne, Wellesley Centers for Women, Miss Representation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated Update: ChapStick has removed the ad and issue a really crappy apology that is both deflective and untruthful.
We see that not everyone likes our new ad, and please know that we certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone! Our fans and their voices are at the heart of our new advertising campaign, but we know we don’t always get it right. We’ve removed the image and will share a newer ad with our fans soon! We apologize that fans have felt like their posts are being deleted and while we never intend to pull anyone’s comments off our wall, we do comply with Facebook guidelines and remove posts that use foul language, have repetitive messaging, those that are considered spam-like (multiple posts from a person within a short period of time) and are menacing to fans and employees
150 Responses to “Dear ChapStick, We’re Through”
Leave a Reply
[...] happened to make a brand with a loyal, lifelong following of female customers who buy ChapStick for themselves and their kids, shift their marketing strategy so [...]
Burt’s Bees ads are historically better? At least ChapStick had clothes on their ad woman…
http://blog.pennlive.com/positiveparenting/2008/03/glad_i_boycott_burts_bees.html
[Reply]
As a man, (formerly a husband, and currently a father of a 13 yr old girl and a 16 yr old boy), I have this to say..
I thought the ad was hilarious.
Reason: I’ve often witnessed my (ex)wife, step-daughter, and my daughter flipping over cushions, half-trashing beds, and dumping out purses in pursuit of newly-purchased-recently-lost tubes of lip balm, regardless of brand. Yup, they looked a lot like this.. so this ad cracks me up, and gives me lots of jokes for next time my daughter loses her balm.
While I did see an “@$$”, I also saw a tensed bare foot, wild hair, a hand braced for leverage, and jeans that looked uncomfortably stretched (and not very flattering at that angle). She isn’t in a thong (surprising these days.. let’s face it, way too much sex in advertising is a sad truth), or in any clothing that I think would be found objectionable were she standing upright cheerily applying her lip balm.
I say all of that to say this: I think this ad in particular may be taking a bit too much heat. Trust me, as a father trying to raise both my son and daughter to respect themselves and others, I agree with the need to be vigilant. In this case.. maybe hyper-vigilance is what we’re seeing.
That’s just my opinion, so it isn’t worth much once it leaves my mouth.
Thanks for listening, and keep up the good work (no sarcasm).
[Reply]
melissa Reply:
October 28th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Hi Jon -
Can I ask you something, no sarcasm or snark, but how would you feel if that was your daughter’s ass, in the air and legs spread, used to sell someone’s product? Would it still be hilarious? Because we never see her stand up, or apply her lip balm. We see her ass. Bent over. Trust me, its sexual. The company knew what they were doing, right down to the color and shape of the pillow next to her.
Interestingly, ChapStick’s next ad campaign features a tastefully posed naked model, and those don’t bother me. It isn’t about nudity or near-naked or thongs, it is about objectification. You sound like a great dad. I’m willing to bet you’d be bothered if your 13yo girl was reduced to nothing but an ass in tight jeans. If not, I would be offended for you.
I do appreciate you commenting, and disagreeing in a civil way and explaining why you did. Thanks for reading the blog, hope you come back for more posts.
[Reply]
To all those who find this ad offensive….
I guess you make all your own clothes, grow your own food, build your own homes, never read newspapers, and never watch TV or movies. There isn’t one company in the world that doesn’t use sex to promote there products.
You people obviously have too much free time on you hands.
[Reply]
melissa Reply:
October 28th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Yup, and I made the computer I write my blogs on.
My company, Pigtail Pals, is a company in this world that doesn’t use sex to sell products.
Now back to my free time! Whee!
[Reply]
[...] “There isn’t much in question about your ad – the odd pose, butt in the air, the skin tight jeans, the sexy blowing hair – it is all a mind-numbingly sophomoric use of implied sex to sell a product. The thing is, for everyone who uses (used) ChapStick, we know that those little tubes go missing all of the time, and there were dozens of other very clever ways for you to depict this. But you didn’t. You chose to go with ‘Ass,’” wrote Redefine Girly’s Melissa Wardy, who know proudly uses Burt’s Bees (read here). [...]
After re-reang some of the other comments here, as well as my own previous comment. Then reading the newer comments, I have reconsidered some of my opinions:
1) Most people _like_ to be found attractive. Petty creatures that we are become ‘catty’ toward members of the same sex found being more attractive than we are.Often with words like – “objectifying”, and “sex symbol”. I have never heard of an unhappy “Hooters Waitress” nor have I ever seen a sexy women’s lib’er. (Not that they don’t exist – Im sure they do – but I personally have not seen them. [Kinda like I don't personlly know anyone who helped Brittany Spears become a Platnum album seller... but apparently it happened])
2) Don’t feed the trolls. I know I have responded twice to this blog post – but this second response is more of a public service annoncement: You are all being trolled into responding . Waste your time elsewhere – perhaps Maxim has a good story on their site?
……….2a) – - – - The More You Know! *ding!*
[Reply]
There’s a far better reason to refuse to buy Chapstick.
They use petrolatum, which is gross for a wide variety of reasons. Might I suggest Burt’s Bees instead? A friendly company that doesn’t even spend very much on advertisement, the beeswax formulas are wonderful!
[Reply]
Don’t do what you’ll have to find an excuse for. A proverb. This applies to what ChapStick has done with their ad. Now they’re making excuses after doing something that some of their customer didn’t like. Honestly, I’m not that offended by the ad itself. But after knowing that they could have actually made a better one, that’s just plain stupid.
gracia19´s last blog ..The best Diet solutions to supplement weight loss
[Reply]
I think people are just a little sensitive nowadays. If the woamn was in a mini-skirt, bent at the waist, then yes, it would be objective and offensive. If the picture was taken head on of a woman in a tube top, leaning over a drawer so you could see down her shirt that would be offensive. This is a person who happens to be female frantically looking for something behind the couch. She is wearing normal, tasteful clothes. So, we just shouldn’t have women in ads unless they are from the neck up with their mouth closed?
“…sexualizes a woman and gives off that low budget, basement porny-feeling…” Seriously? So, if you bend over to look for something in your own house, you just started a low-budget porn? Come on…
Could the ad have been shot on mroe of angle? Sure. But the pic is a wide shot of a couch with the woman on it…they are not zoomed in on any part of her body. There is absoultely nothing sexual about the position she is in. I am sure there are FAR more sexual and objectifying ads out there for products that do not need sex to sell them, and I think that this is getting blown WAY out of proportion.
[Reply]
melissa Reply:
November 3rd, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Brian -
The rest of your comment aside, this now-removed Chapstick ad is directly mimicking American Apparel, right down to the font used. AA is known for a marketing tack that reeks of barely-legal basement porn.
[Reply]
So sad to hear about Chapstick. Actually I am a user of their lip balm for a long time, and I can’t believe there’s an issue about them today. Hope they can fix their problem soon. Thanks for this post.
Gabby´s last blog ..Simple Facts About The Pearl Arowana of Australia You Should Know
[Reply]
I don’t honestly see anything wrong with this ad, and I’m pretty conservative (I hate the new Dr.Pepper 10 “just for men” campaign). It’s her @$$, fully clothed and I don’t think she’s in a suggestive manner. I see people’s thongs poking out of their jeans on my way to class and I have to deal with that, this is a perfectly acceptable ad and its extreme to boycott chapstick for it.
[Reply]
Yet you switched to a product that did a similar move in 2008, only the woman was naked.
http://blog.pennlive.com/positiveparenting/2008/03/glad_i_boycott_burts_bees.html
You should probably do so research before committing to another brand over a picture that was chosen for an add.
[Reply]
melissa Reply:
November 24th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Brittany -
The advertising was a completely different tone. I don’t have a problem with nudity. I have a problem with objectification.
[Reply]