NextBillion.net - Development Through Enterprise - The BOP Debate: WRI Responds - Comments

hi

sohbet — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:45:03 -0500

The UVA/UVB protection prevents the skin from needing to produce more melanin. All of these qualities improve the appearance of skin.sohbet

Hi

Komik Resimler — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:29:04 -0500

Great site and an fascinating debate you have going on here. Freaky how we have creams to make you pretty or just make your skin lighter to allow you to fit better into society. It's disgusting to know people cannot just be who they are and have needs for creams like this.

hi

sohbet — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:20:43 -0500

The UVA/UVB protection

kampanya — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:27:03 -0500

The UVA/UVB protection prevents the skin from needing to produce more melanin. All of these qualities improve the appearance of skin.

Fascinating Debate

Marcus — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:15:40 -0500

This is a crying shame

Patricia — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:14:50 -0500

I have problems with this because Fair and Lovely exploits feelings of inferiority individuals may have becuase of how they look due to their NATURAL skin color. Rather than doing the truly developmental thing of working towards encouraging people to be comfortable in their own skin, Fair and Lovely exploits feeling of low self-worth. Surely we should aspire to create a world where everyone believes that they were born looking a certain way and that its ok. Lightening one's skin and then feeling better about oneself because of it is SUCH a royal waste of time because the basic issue of low self-confidence manifested in one's aspirations to conform to narrow aesthetic preferences has not been resolved. So I think Fair and Lovely is in the business of exploiting feelings of low self-confidence...which I think is a crying shame.

Fair&Lovely

Rama Bijapurkar — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:36:26 -0500

This debate is surprisingly supplier centric and imperialist - "us rich and formidably educated will decide what you poor and uneducated need to aspire to and have and not have". As a consumer researcher in India let me say unequivocally that poor people are not stupid and easily beguiled. If looking fairer is what adds value to them, they will buy a solution for it - if not, no one can make them buy. Think like a consumer just for a minute.... If your daughter can get married at lesser dowry or get a boy who is better educated, because she is fair, then is this real value add and economic benefit to the family over an extended period of time or is it exploitation of the poor? (Please understand the market structure of matrimony, not skin creams - that is what customer centricty demands). Finally, Who decides what is exploitation any way? 'Us' or them? I think the tone of this debate is consumer insulting. Consumers are not morons. There is enough data on failures of golden great global brands who tried to muscle low income and rural consumers in India into buying... Or for that matter do examine the voting behaviour of the poor in India and you will see that the freebies dished out by ploiticians don't ensure a win.

my research on Niacinamide...

lance durham — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:52:22 -0500

Vitamin B3 (Niacinamide) is the active ingredient in 'Fair & Lovely'. It, along with the UVA/UVB protection (sunscreen), causes the skin to 'lighten' over time. Neither of these is a skin bleaching agent. Rather, both seem to prevent melanin from making its way to the upper layers of skin. The UVA/UVB protection prevents the skin from needing to produce more melanin; the Vitamin B3 reduces the transfer of whatever melanin is produced from the the bottom layer of skin cells to the upper layers of skin cells [Vitamin B3 helps prevent melanosome transfer from melanocytes to melanophages].

Vitamin B3 is also known to increase ceramide (causing the skin to produce new skin cells), increase fatty acid levels, maintain hydration, stimulate circulation, reduce the appearance of wrinkles, reduce redness, reduce sallowness, improve elasticity and reduce skin discoloration. It also may reduce acne and skin cancer. All of these qualities improve the appearance of skin.

And, while Karnani's paper quotes a few supposed experts that would imply the contrary, I read that there are published journal articles on the skin benefits of Niacinimide, such as:
British Journal of Dermatology, September 2000, pages 524–531
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, April 2004, page 88
International Journal of Dermatology, March 2005, pages 197-202
Dermatologic Surgery, July 2005, pages 860-865
Experimental Dermatology, July 2005, pages 498-508
Nutrition and Cancer, February 1997, pages 157–162
International Journal of Dermatology, June 1995, pages 434-437
Journal of Radiation Research, December 2004, pages 491-495
British Journal of Dermatology, October 2003, page 681
Journal of Dermatological Science, volume 31, 2003, pages 193-201

Skin whitening debate

Rob Smorfitt — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:50:18 -0500

Interestingly in South Africa many years ago, debate arose around the carcinogenic effects of skin lightening creams. It was perceived to be exploitation. However, following the entry into the market of a black entrepreneur, all debate appears to have ended. I do not know the detail, but it would appear to be okay to exploit your own as an enrepreneur, but not as a global player!?

education

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:05:11 -0500

I find myself somewhat surprised to agree with Mssrs. Hammond, Kramer and Katz on this point. How much of what is bought and sold is really _needed_? It would be better to put energy into educating and supporting people to live rich lives than to try to clamp down on this product. It is probably the case that HLL spends more money on advertising than anyone will ever spend trying to change the caste system or help dark-skinned people and light-skinned people see themselves as equals. The same can no doubt be said for all cosmetics, and most clothing. And once in a while, a campaign like Dove's 'Real Beauty' comes along and surprises us - and is a tremendous success.

The BOP Debate: WRI Responds

Rob Katz — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:26:54 -0500

By Allen Hammond, Bill Kramer, and Rob Katz

The recent debate over Fair & Lovely Whitening Cream, both in Aneel Karnani's working paper and in Andrew Leonard's column in Salon, brings up many interesting points. In response to Karnani, who argues that Fair & Lovely "entrenches disempowerment," we suggest that a well-regulated free market may be the best indicator of what works and what doesn't work, for the BOP as well as for other economic strata.

Hindustan Lever and its Fair & Lovely product did not create skin-color bias in India. Indeed, HLL simply responded in a rational manner to the demand for a product that effectively lightens skin. We do not have sufficient information to pass judgment on the way HLL has marketed this product, nor is it our remit. Of course, we condemn discrimination in all its forms, for what that is worth. However, as a Salon commenter notes, when a BOP customer chooses to buy skin cream, it is an aspirational purchase that she would not have had the wherewithal to make in the past. The consumer is making a rational choice, based on the circumstances.

Fair & Lovely would not be a commercial success if it did not work as advertised. Clearly, HLL understands the BOP market better than its competitors and has created a product that is very much in demand. At the same time, when HLL engaged in discriminatory advertising for Fair & Lovely, there was public pressure on them to cease the ad campaign, and backlash against the company in general. The market, in other words, was working.

Understanding market structure and the demand implicit in that structure is key to success for companies--and to meeting the needs of consumers. And while a skin cream may not seem to be a basic unmet need, that is really for consumers to decide. In any event, the same approach is key to dealing with market-based solutions to undeniably basic unmet needs, such as for clean drinking water and for access to health care or financial services.

That's why, next month, WRI and IFC will publish a detailed empirical guide to the size and structure of BOP markets worldwide, along with an analysis of the business strategies that seem to be gaining traction on the ground, sector by sector. The report, to be called The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid, is intended to help both businesses and the development community to engage with the BOP in a more strategic fashion. It will provide, hopefully, a more detailed basis for a discussion of the pros and cons of market-based approaches to poverty alleviation.