Superstore Downy Fabric Conditioner Ad

The subject of this analysis is an advertisement for a fabric conditioner made by Downy. Hanging from the side of a shelf, the ad takes the form of a simple rectangle. On display is a comparison of two sweaters of different visual quality, with the fabric conditioner having supposedly been used on the more boldly coloured and shapely one; the ad was clearly created to catch the attention of consumers and convince them that the use of this product will maintain the appeal of their clothing. This is supported by the statement spangled across the upper portion of the ad, reading “Clothes Look NEWER 50% Longer!” Below is the aforementioned juxtaposition of two sweaters, which take up the central half of the banner. The sweater directly underneath the lettering is navy blue and completely lacking in any sort of creases or wrinkles. Additionally, white lettering proudly proclaims it was cleaned “WITH TIDE®️, DOWNY®️, & BOUNCE®️”. As the viewer’s gaze moves downwards they are met with another sweater, this one an uneven hue of purple and crinkled. This particular sweater has “DETERGENT ALONE” written across it in what seems to be a smaller font then above. Both sweaters are a background to the messaging. Finally, we see a picture of the product’s bottle alongside a checklist asserting that the product helps prevent, stretching, fading, and fuzz. At the very bottom, in minuscule text, it is specified that the ragamuffin sweater was used with the “leading value powder detergent alone”. It is obvious that the ad has a goal, it being that by using Downey fabric conditioner, consumers can prevent their clothing from wearing down and thus extend the store bought lustre they possessed upon purchase. The contrast of the two sweaters argues this case, presenting the benefits of the product while offering a stark warning to those who decline. Overall, I believe that the ad does a decent job of conveying its message. The trope of comparing “our brand” vs “competitor” has been used plenty of times, and though it could be considered overused, I feel it may give the audience a feeling of similarity. Ultimately, however, I felt that the worn-out sweater looked comfier, so I cannot claim the ad was wholly effective on me. This ad is located in the domestic product aisle of the Real Canadian Superstore branch in Kamloops, BC. Although it is positioned right beside the product it promotes, it was not exceptionally noticeable due to the fact that there were similar ads approximately every two meters (some of these can be observed in the background of the photo). I am familiar with the Downy brand, having seen ads on TV, though I do not use their products myself. While info on Downy’s environmental practices is scarce, I did find that P&G, Downy’s parent company, previously engaged in animal testing. Following a campaign led by PETA, P&G reversed course (Washington). Today, they claim to not test on animals “unless required by law”.

Washington, Andrew Marshall in. “Procter & Gamble Cuts Animal Tests.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 22 Oct. 2011, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/procter-gamble-cuts-animal-tests-1103742.html.

“Does P&G Test on Animals?” P&G Consumer Support, pgconsumersupport.secure.force.com/ContactUs/sf_FAQArticleTemplate?id=kA080000000H0WI