Glow & lovely?

CHENNAI: Over the decades, colour prejudices in India have produced several multi-billion-dollar brands that perpetuate racism. Recently, in the light of #BlackLivesMatter, Hindustan Unilever announced its move to rechristen its skin-lightening brands Fair & Lovely to Glow & Lovely and Fair & Handsome to Glow & Handsome, receiving global backlash. A few conscious consumers discuss why this rebranding is far from ‘glowing’.

Harini Aravind, information designer
The skin bias is so deep-seated in us, as a culture, that Glow & Lovely is a blink and miss, a zero-impact change. As a large brand, they need to do more. They need to apologise for their part in perpetuating the bias not just in words, but in more aggressive campaigning. In fact, actor Nandita Das, on her part, has been actively campaigning about this issue more than any huge conglomerate.

Manasa R, journalist
Let’s not be too quick in celebrating this rechristening. Corporates need to be held accountable and we must ensure they walk the talk every step of the way, which also means, a revamp in their packaging and discontinuing the same ad trope of the dark-skinned model getting lighter skin along with confidence. I don’t think anybody is fooled by this gimmick. Calling what is essentially still a skin lightening cream by any other name makes absolutely no difference in changing deep-set attitudes towards skin colour. ‘Glow’ itself is a word associated with colourism in the Indian context and the cosmetic removal of ‘fair’, the bigger ‘villain’ here, is merely a cosmetic change.

AR Muhilann Murugan, architect
I’ve often thought that had I been a few tones fairer, I would’ve felt more accepted in my family. I hated myself when people called me derogatory names because of my skin tone. Even male models in magazines always looked fair. I felt as though I was an alien. I dreamed of having a fair-skinned boyfriend. With time and awareness, I realised that my skin tone didn’t matter and I started embracing my darker tone.My perspectives changed. Fair & Lovely or Glow & Lovely; the name is immaterial if your underlying beliefs are strong enough.

Hannah Ivy Priya, editor
T his is just an all-too-familiar stunt the public has seen time and again. Be it politicians, movie stars or brands, reparation for their mistakes always plays out like a planned move that appeases the situation but never fixes the problem. From making it clear that ‘white-skin’ is the way to go, the brand has simply adopted a lesser in-your-face term ‘glow’. What won’t be surprising is the advertisement sporting a model whose skin would glow unnaturally from the use of the product and would end up acing an interview, getting a job and gaining all the confidence to fly abroad just because of her skin. Until brands stop playing into the insecurities of people, we will be stuck in this paradigm of everything being only skin-deep.

Anirudh Madhav, communication associate
Rechristening ‘Fair’ as ‘Glow’ doesn’t undo the implication of the product that promotes an even-toned, blemish-free skin with protection from the sun.Not only does the product fail to achieve its goals, but it also continues to reiterate the unhealthy belief that flawless skin equates beauty. It undermines the strength of womanhood that lies in her heart than her skin and destructs a million others who live their life trying to meet the unreal standards. We don’t need a naming ceremony. We need real change.

Swathi PM, PRO
The name change is to prove what? That the company is against racism? They needed a #BlackLivesMatter protest in the US to realise that what they were doing via their marketing strategies also falls under the umbrella of racism, that too in a country like India which is fair-skin obsessed. Well, Fair & Lovely has been in the Indian market for 45 years, I think HUL was a little too late in making the name change. Rephrasing Fair with Glow doesn’t change what the product is, its intention or the target customers.

Angeline Babitha,process trainer
There’s no point in renaming it when the product-use remains the same. And what do they mean by ‘Glow’? They are again going to promote it against dark skin. The better thing to do would be to stop manufacturing these products.At the very least, change the product’s purpose to focus on skin quality and care. Just changing its name while still having a light-skinned person as its face is not going to sell. Also, the new name doesn’t even sound attractive!

Ashwin Thiyagarajan,fashion designer
The problem was not just the name but the whole concept in itself. For decades, adolescent girls and boys have watched their ads and believed that they had to be a few shades lighter to succeed in any field. When such an idea is instilled at a very young age, it’s hard to change. We are in an era where we are learning to love the skin we are in. Products like these are a deterrent to the change that we want to see in society! It definitely should be banned.

Nahshon Benjamin, copywriter
Glow & Lovely’ or ‘Glow & Handsome’ is laughable for its inappropriate usage. But this is also a start to conversations about why we paint perfectly tan Indian brides an obscene shade of pink or why college brochures only model students with lighter skin. This rebranding is just a pathetic attempt to ensure their business carries on; we should pay attention to our prejudices and remind ourselves to speak out against racism when it occurs in any way, shape, or form. As much as we would like to think otherwise, we should also recognise that we are part of the problem.  

Arvind Sundaram,journalist
I’ve always wondered what the name Fair & Lovely implies. Does it mean people can look lovely only if they are fair?
I’ve seen my friends religiously applying the cream and believing that it’d make them fair some day.
These brands define appearance based on their business models. I feel that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. I’m glad that they’ve made a change to the name. You can be any skin tone and yet glow.

Mithuna Maran, student
No matter what they christen the product, it is still a ‘skin lightening and brightening’ cream. After removing the terms ‘brightening’ ‘lightening’ and ‘fair’, what will exactly be the cream’s purpose? Will it be a moisturiser? A primer? Ads and products like these have already injected venom in the society for 45 years, killing the confidence of dusky and dark-skinned people. I believe that complexion is an eternal gift and creams like these are placebos. If every individual practices inclusion and believes in anti-colourism, then everyone will start appreciating their skin-tone and there won’t be a need for a ‘fairness’ cream to make someone feel confident.

Jagannath R,research manager
Fairness creams as a product line is an effect of post-colonial hangover and a fetish for fair skin. For decades, FMCG companies have continued to perpetuate these notions of social desirability and the preference for fair skin.The mere renaming of the product does nothing to towards addressing this, but just global consortium coming up with another marketing gimmick to sell more of these products.

Sooraj Thomas Rajan, PR and marketing consultant
We have had endless examples of our collective shallow desire for fair complexion in media. The kind of ads and campaigns done by cosmetic brands can be demeaning when it portrays an entirely unreal picture of beauty, life and sense of well-being. The underlying message being, “you need to have fair skin to succeed and be accepted”. Except for a few of us who see through the advertising gimmick, the less-informed majority are strongly influenced and often carry the stress along for a lifetime, not feeling good about themselves, thinking somehow they are lesser, inferior because of their complexion. Men are also victims of the fairness fiasco. Why do we need to be fair to be handsome? What’s more disheartening is the celebrity endorsements to these products. I wish they’d be a little responsible in influencing and guiding the larger population a little more sensibly. We are an educated and well-informed society, it’s high time we stop falling prey to this mockery.

Thanusree, blogger
Every time I come across this name, I think of colourism and the prejudices that come with it. In Indian society, there is always a bias that only those who are fair-skinned look beautiful. Often those with dark or dusky skin tone are degraded. Such discrimination always tends to lower the confidence of those who are not fair-skinned. Every time I come across Fair & Lovely’s advertisement, I see a dark-skinned girl feeling low, asking a fair-toned girl for help to look ‘beautiful’. And then, she suggests Fair & Lovely! Such ads convey nothing but the deep-skinned biases and reinstate stereotypes about skin colour. While the brand’s decision to rename the product might have been with good intentions, it doesn’t change its core ideology. That has to change.

Simran Jha, entrepreneur
Are we seriously still going to let some cream tell us that the shade of our skin is not good enough? It’s 2020 and we are moving (or trying) towards a world which embraces self-love. The ‘lighter skin is better than darker skin’ mindset is a setback in this process of self-acceptance. If such biases are still out there, it only means it’s hiding behind a fresh paint — in this case, a new name that merely complies to the new norms of the society, just so it can still survive and secretly continue existing while we keep fighting against this toxic superficiality which neither promotes nor supports the idea of being comfortable in our skin.

Swathi PM, PRO
The name change is to prove what? That the company is against racism? They needed a #BlackLivesMatter protest in the US to realise that what they were doing via their marketing strategies also falls under the umbrella of racism, that too in a country like India which is fair-skin obsessed. Well, Fair & Lovely has been in the Indian market for 45 years, I think HUL was a little too late in making the name change. Rephrasing Fair with Glow doesn’t change what the product is, its intention or the target customers.