Shea Moisture released a commercial in late April 2017 that attempted to address all women’s struggle with loving and embracing their natural hair yet they left out one major detail: ALL women. I believe this ad is a perfect example for practicing reading against the grain. I will provide my questions below in square brackets as Pullman referenced in “Persuasion: History, Theory, and Practice” :

Background Information: [Who is Shea Moisture’s biggest consumers demographically?] [Who is Shea Moisture’s targeted audience?]

Commercial

Fact: Hair Hate is Real? [What is “hair hate?”] [Are there specific kinds of “hair hate”? And who is the majority of people affected by it?] 

There’s a point in the video where one red-headed white woman states that she hated her natural hair color. [Are there different types of “hair hate”?] [What’s the difference between “hair hate” because of its texture and “hair hate” for its color?]

One phrase of the ad states: “Embrace Hair/Love in Every Form” [ If this statement is a main premise of the message of the commercial then why isn’t every hair type represented?]  To clarify there are multiple hair types that are subset into categories I’m providing a visual below:

 

Even more questions for the marketing exec. that green lighted (cleared) the commercial:

[Why is their mainly fair skinned, loose curled or straight haired girls advertised?] [Is their evidence that support that this hair type is subjected to more scrutiny and aversion that other hair types?]

[Is Shea Moisture aware of the societal impact of the lack of inclusion and representation of all hair types?] 

If Shea Moisture would have seriously considered these questions along with extensive research of various demographics, different hair types and the real societal effect of misrepresentation and exclusion instead of attempting to appeal to a certain demographic group then their ad would’ve been more receptive and accepted to it’s major consumer group.

 

css.php