Dove backlash: Key takeaways
- A Qixi video portraying an ambiguous affair undermined Dove’s decades-old romantic positioning
- Dismissive customer-service responses intensified the backlash and pushed the controversy up Weibo’s rankings
- Blaming a third-party operator exposed the risks of decentralising official-store content and brand oversight
It took one short video for Dove (德芙) to give three decades of romantic positioning a less than faithful reputation. The video, uploaded to the chocolate brand’s official flagship store, tells the story of a woman whose boyfriend had failed to buy her a Dove gift box. While he’s away, she shares a gift box with an ambiguous romantic interest instead, one who drives for two hours to deliver it. Her verdict: ‘very sweet.’
It took one short video for Dove to give three decades of romantic positioning a less-than-faithful reputation
Chinese consumers didn’t agree with the protagonist’s tastes. Screenshots poured across the internet even after the video was deleted. Comments were scathing. Dove had earnt the labels ‘mistress chocolate’ and ‘cuckold chocolate’. Its famous ‘indulge in silky smoothness’ slogan was reworked into jokes about infidelity.
Two days after the video’s release the controversy had reached the top of Weibo’s trending topics. Shoddy customer service then added to the heat. Consumers who questioned the video were reportedly told that it was an individual creation that did not represent the brand. Another response suggested that those who disliked it could simply scroll past.
Dove apologised that evening. It said the video had been created and published by a third-party store operator that failed to follow its content-review procedures. The company acknowledged that both the story’s values and the customer-service response were inappropriate.
The Dao view: Dove’s outsourced marketing created an in-house crisis
Outsourcing may explain how the video was published but it doesn’t get Dove off the hook. Consumers encountered the story through an official flagship store carrying the brand’s name. Dove only tried to distance itself from this third-party operator once things had gone wrong.
Outsourcing may explain how the video was published, but it doesn’t let Dove off the hook
The obvious – and egregious – failure was in running with a plot that contradicted the meaning Dove chocolate is meant to carry. For about 30 years the brand has connected its products with sincere romantic affection. That’s not a narrative that has room for lovers on the side.
The outside operator was reportedly Shanghai Zongzheng Food (上海宗正食品), an authorised Dove distributor that also ran the offending official-store account. The arrangement placed areas like sales and content creation in their hands.
Dove hasn’t said how the video got past its content review processes, but its since been found that different Dove official flagship stores across Chinese platforms were registered to several outside businesses. This slip-up is starting to look a lot like a lesson in the hazards of decentralising your marketing.
