On the About-Face web site (that is, on this blog and elsewhere on our site), we talk about a lot of ads and other media that require action from consumers. But when we say “write a letter or e-mail,” what does that really mean? I used to think about what I would say for so long that I’d never write the letters. Those days are over for me, but a lot of people don’t know what to say to these companies. Here are some tips. For an example, check out the comments in the Dairy Queen post.
(If you’ve written a particularly good complaint letter that follows these suggestions, please post it in the comments below!)
How to Write an Effective Complaint Letter about an Ad or Other Media
Opening paragraph
- Say why you’re writing. Specify the ad or other media (use the name of the ad if you know it)
- Write one VERY SHORT sentence about your problem with the ad
- Briefly say what your action is going to be (see below)
Following paragraphs
- Go into more detail about why the ad is problematic for you, for society, for women, for men, for people of color, or whatever. Be productive and descriptive. Do not say “I think” or “I believe” or “I feel” — be strong! Do not go off on a rant, even if you are angry. You will be dismissed as a crazy person if you do rant, and the company will not read your letter or take it seriously.
- Tell them again what your action will be. Always say you will not buy their product until the ad is “pulled” (no longer published, on TV, etc.). Even if you were not a customer before, tell them you were a formerly loyal customer. If you’re planning to stage a protest, say that, but don’t state the date.
- State what the company will need to do to earn your business back. Issue an apology in a press release? Pull the ad from TV/radio or magazines, or take the billboard down?
- Tell the offending company you will spread the word to other customers and to all your friends and acquaintances. Then go send your letter in an e-mail to all your friends, post it on your MySpace or Facebook page, etc. and urge your friends/family to take action too.
- Sign your real name and write your city and state below your name.
Take more advanced action
If you have more time and/or incredible amounts of ire about your ad/media, here are more steps you can take that will make a difference:
- Send the letter/e-mail to the ad agency that created the ad. Find out who the agency was and send them the letter as well. Do not call them. Why? The advertiser (company whose products are being sold) made the final decisions about the ad’s content. It’s hard to tell how much was the advertiser’s doing and how much was the agencies’.
- Use more modes of communication. Make phone calls and write a real, paper letter too (not just an e-mail). Media outlets pay attention to this stuff!
- Send it to the editorial body. If the ad was on TV, send a letter to the TV station or cable channel, and specify the date you saw the ad and what show was on. Similarly, if the ad was in a magazine, pull out the ad and mail it to the magazine with your letter. Send it to the editor-in-chief and also the sales director. (When I was a magazine editor, our readers opinions mattered more than you want to know.)
- Post a flyer on or near the local retail store of the business that details the problems with the ad. Again, use productive communication.
When you’re done
Once you write your super-cool, pointed letter, just save a copy and change it a little each time you come across an ad. Make it easy for yourself to write these suckers!
Why complain in the first place?
Here’s why: It makes a difference, even if you never get a response. When a company’s sales go down, the people at the company wonder why that’s happening. You want to hit them over the head with a hint so they will change their tactics. Also, remember that consumers have the most power over companies, since, as a for-profit corporation, their main concern is — duh — profits. When we don’t buy the products, the companies have less money and thus less advertising power. And, when you raise a stink (even a little stink), companies get humilated, which is usually the only way to get them to change.
Again, I hope you’ll post your greatest letter in the comments below. And let us know other tips that have worked for you!
- J. B.
May 13th, 2008
Courtesy of a tip from Feministing, this ad from Dairy Queen, showing a little girl flirting with a little boy to get him to buy her a hot fudge sundae. Now, maybe my dad would say it’s cute. Or maybe not.
There are so many things wrong here:
1) The little girl seems to know she’s attractive — why else would she assume the boy would buy her a sundae?
2) When the girl says “make it one,” at first I thought it was because she was watching her weight. Is that the advertiser’s intention?
3) An 8-year-old girl is already into courting and flirting. (Not unlike how many of them also know about being “sexy” and “hot”.) Also, she first seals the deal with the boy at the same moment the mother says the word “temptations.” Accident? I think NOT. The advertising agency wrote the script and synchronized it with the commercial’s action.
TAKE YOUR OWN ACTION: I’m gonna go let Dairy Queen know how I feel about this ad that encourages gender stereotypes that encourages girls to be dependent and manipulative. I hope you’ll do the same. Here are some ideas.
- Go to this web page to give ‘em a piece of your mind.
- If you’re a Dairy Queen customer, don’t go there for a while. (Resist!) Or pull the super-gutsy move: Go to your local Dairy Queen, ask for the manager, and tell him/her that you are not buying anything there because of this ad. Heck, fill out a complaint form while you’re there!
- Call DQ Corporate headquarters: (952) 830-0200 (I just checked the number, and yes, a real person answers.)
- Write a real, paper letter and send it to:
American Dairy Queen Corporation Headquarters
7505 Metro Blvd
Edina, MN 55439
We hope you’ll let us know whether you took these actions in our comments below, and what the result was.
- J. B.
May 9th, 2008
[Update 5/9/08: An article in AdAge today reports on a statement from Dove and the retoucher mentioned in the New Yorker article discussed below. See updates throughout this item. -J.B.]
Ah, Photoshop retouching, how you pain us, how you confuse us all. Reading a very amazing (and very long) article in the New Yorker (May 12, 2008 issue) today, I learned about the techniques and life of master photo retoucher Pascal Dangin. I encourage About-Face visitors to take the time to read the entire article, either online or in the magazine itself.
[The Dove ads: Lots of retouching? Really? Did you have to break our hearts?]
[Update: Phew — turns out there may not have been much retouching after all.]
My rose-colored glasses were cracked by this statement about his work on the Dove campaigns. From the article:
I [the article’s author] mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”
Retouchers, subjected to endless epistemological debates—are they simple conduits for social expectations of beauty, or shapers of such?—often resort to a don’t-shoot-the-messenger defense of their craft, familiar to repo guys and bail bondsmen. When I asked Dangin if the steroidal advantage that retouching gives to celebrities was unfair to ordinary people, he admitted that he was complicit in perpetuating unrealistic images of the human body, but said, “I’m just giving the supply to the demand.” (Fashion advertisements are not public-service announcements.)
Of course they had some retouching done — but a LOT of retouching? Wait a minute. Aren’t they supposed to be “real” women?
[Update: Dangin says he did not work on the “women in their undergarments” ad, said, “In my experienced opinion, based upon what I have seen, it does not appear that the women had been retouched.”
Turns out that he did work on the Dove Pro-Age ads, which were photographed by Annie Leibovitz. Per the AdAge article mentioned above:
In her statement, provided by Unilever, Ms. Leibovitz said, “Let’s be perfectly clear — Pascal does all kinds of work … and only does retouching when asked to. The idea for Dove was very clear at the beginning. There was to be NO retouching, and there was not.”]
In the article, Dangin comes across as an artist, but he’s still manipulating the public image. Then there are tons of other photo retouchers out there who, at the urging of their advertising and magazine clients, shave off too much hip, remove too much bulge, and create a Frankenstein’s monster. Case in point:
[Some bad image manipulation.]
The resulting image can have one of two effects: Girls, boys, women, and men can see the image and 1) perceive it as real, assuming that it is the way a beautiful woman should look, or 2) see it as a grotesque, malformed person. We make the choice, and the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty makes the point well: we often can’t tell whether an image is retouched. (See the irony here?) Will we continue to believe our eyes and try to get ever more “perfect”?
I don’t believe that photographers should never use Photoshop on their photos — everyone wants a pimple removed in their family picture for posterity or their MySpace or Facebook page — but completely changing a body to within a centimeter of its former self? And selling us a literally unattainable form of beauty we are told we must fit into? That’s where I draw the line.
- J.B.
May 8th, 2008
