http://jezebel.com/this-commercial-totally-nails-the-double-standard-for-m-1478197103
This is an interesting commercial that was shared by one of my friends on Facebook (and in real life;). I am just moderately skeptical when companies selling products veer so blatantly into the social realm, because their agendas are so unclear. Are they truly using their platform for good, or are they pandering to the desires and frustrations of their target markets in the hopes of building the brand and expanding its base? Dove yielded huge dividends in the goodwill department by employing so called “average” women in their commercials, which barely, if ever, discussed the benefits of their products.
Selling products by focusing on the merits of the product in absolute terms, and in contrast to the competition, is often a thing of the past. Nevertheless, I believe this approach to be a slippery slope that threatens to turn consumers into pawns. Pawns that fiercely defend the agendas of their kings and queens whom they never actually see, who reside so far away from the fight and benefit so richly.
I think that those who are too eager to jump on the social agenda bandwagons turn the wrong questions into war cries. To do so is to move from one powerless and abused state to another. The answer to this riddle and the intent is in the hearts and minds of those who produce these pieces. Which of us can truly know their goal, but the question is worth asking. In the meantime, I suppose that all we can do is hope for the best and engage in the dialogue that it inspires one way or another. Perhaps this is our reward. Either way, as you ruminate, please massage your social consciousness with Pantene.
NB: I think that Jezebel.com is too often the “girl” who cries wolf.
INENARRABLE 
A “product” is not defined solely by its physical characteristics, in the minds of many consumers. So if a manufacturer chooses to clothe its advertisements with statements that define its (the manufacturer’s) social views, that serves to inform potential customers about things that are important to them.
To the extent possible, some people only will buy products and services from companies that profess to be environmentally responsible. Many investors seek to invest in companies that are “socially responsible.” My brokerage house has a category that helps investors find those companies. Others will (to the extent possible) buy only products “made in America.) Because I believe Walmart to be inappropriately castigated for its alleged poor treatment of its employees, I go out of my way to buy at Walmart. Some will not buy from companies that are unionized, to the extent possible. Still others avoid companies that have any history of discrimination against women. All of these decisions are based on perceptions that the “product” is more than its physical characteristics.
I don’t think that anyone is a controlled, helpless pawn, when companies inform potential customers of attributes that may be important in a purchasing decision. The company is the pawn because it serves the customer’s interest.