fair and lovely's real competition in india are the traditional concoctions that women have been using to make their skin lighter. these include natural face packs and scrubs that contain milk, honey, turmeric etc. products have always existed to meet this demand. the cream rides on the convenience factor.

fair skin helps one's features stand out and in that sense it's perfectly rational to want fair skin given that a woman's good looks enhances her ability to find a 'good' spouse. from the past couple of advertisements i've seen on air, i understand that levers has moved away from directly linking fair skin to one's marriage prospects to linking fair skin to career breaks. in my opinion it's an indirect and acceptable way of saying fair and lovely will imptove your marriage prospects in this day and age where good wives are not just beautiful but highly qualified and capable of earning well.

To the extent that the product cited (skin lightner) isn't -- nor should it be -- at the top of one's hierarchy of needs, I agree with Mr. Leonard. However, that would also suggest that capitalism itself can be pilloried by reference to its most trivial exemplar.

Dr. Prahalad, as I have read in other publications, also cites inexpensive eye surgery and prosthetics as examples. Would Mr. Leonard object to consumers in poor countries having access to cheap medical devices? I would guess that he wouldn't.

Now, returning to his example, and comparing and contrasting it to medical devices as a market sector, can it be fair to say that the "point" criticism (beauty aids) doesn't summarize the entire distribution (devices, beauty aids)? Again, I would guess not.

Further, isn't there a degree of paternalism here? People under a system of many choices will make bad choices. Isn't that better than having little to no choice? Won't people with many choices and limited budgets learn what we all must eventually: capital budgeting in the face of scarcity?

How does Mr. Leonard think that capitalism evolves: 1) Within a Petri dish containing both successes and failures; 2) in an environment of perfect choices at all times.

With all due respect to Mr. Leonard, I agree with his choice and comments concerning the most trivial example imaginable, but would guess that the folks in India are as smart as we are and will figure it all out, given time and exposure to a robust opportunity set.

Correction: And I realize after re-reading everything that my disagreement on the "narrow" ground of the manufacture of desire does have me disagreeing with pretty much everything in the post. If the root of the problem is not the "manufacture of desire", but the constructs of society and competition, then the marketing of "Fair and Lovely" certainly is a rational response to a rational drive.

I haven't seen the ads, but the questionable nature of the advertisements does not necessarily mean the creation of the product wasn't a rational answer to the rational decisions of individuals in a competitive society. They could have marketed the product in an inoffensive way as well!

While there is no doubt that Andrew is correct in saying that "'Fair and Lovely' would not be a commercial success if it was not advertised.", I believe it is correct for different reasons than him. I'm not sure if Andrew is familiar with the work of Thomas Frank (specifically The Conquest of Cool) or the less well-argued but still worthwhile The Rebel Sell by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, but these books do a good job of deconstructing the myth that the pushers of products "manufacture desire". This "truth" has become "common sense", and is not often questioned.

I do not believe that if "Fair and Lovely" did not exist, there wouldn't be a desire among people in India to whiten their skin. Of course, if it was not advertised, people wouldn't know about the product and thus wouldn't be able to purchase it - but its not "being known" would not change the class structure of Indian society and the high societal value it places lighter skin tones. This is more about status than anything else.

Allow me to quote Heath and Potter (http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2002/11/rebelsell.php):

"In many cases, competition is an intrinsic feature of the goods that we consume. Economists call these “positional goods”—goods that one person can have only if many others do not. Examples include not only penthouse apartments, but also wilderness hikes and underground music. It is often claimed that a growing economy is like the rising tide that lifts all boats. But a growing economy does not create more antiques, more rare art, or more downtown real estate, it just makes them more expensive. Many of us fail to recognize how much of our consumption is devoted to these positional goods.

Furthermore, we are often forced into competitive consumption, just to defend ourselves against the nuisances generated by other people’s consumption. It is unreasonable, for example, for anyone living in a Canadian city to own anything other than a small, fuel-efficient car. At the same time, in many parts of the North America, the number of big SUVs on the road has reached the point where people are forced to think twice before buying a small car. The SUVs make the roads so dangerous for other drivers that everyone has to consider buying a larger car just to protect themselves.

This is why expecting people to opt out is often unrealistic; the cost to the individual is just too high. It’s all well and good to say that SUVs are a danger and shouldn’t be on the road. But saying so doesn’t change anything. The fact is that SUVs are on the road, and they’re not about to disappear anytime soon. So are you willing to endanger your children’s lives by buying a subcompact?

Because so much of our competitive consumption is defensive in nature, people feel justified in their choices. Unfortunately, everyone who participates contributes just as much to the problem, regardless of his or her intentions. It doesn’t matter that you bought the SUV to protect yourself and your children, you still bought it, and you still made it harder for other drivers to opt out of the automotive arms race. When it comes to consumerism, intentions are irrelevant. It is only consequences that count."

Andrew closes by saying "Allowing oneself to be seduced isn't always an exercise in good sense," but is it not good sense to maximize your potential value in society by achieving higher levels of status? Or at the very least, acting in ways that prevent you from sinking any lower? Those that purchased "Fair and Lovely" were not seduced - they were acting in the way all rational people act: maximizing their self interest in a competitive society.

I believe that Andrew's heart is in the right place and I should add that I am only disagreeing with one narrow aspect of his post. I do think however, that he is misreading the real lesson of a product like "Fair and Lovely". It is not a lesson in the "manufacture of desire", but rather, just one of countless examples of the collective action problems engendered by a competitive society. The lesson is not that consumerism is manufactured, but that it is an outgrowth of scarcity and status in society. We are all "keeping up with the Jones", even those that loudly proclaim they aren't. Indians can't simply decide not to pay attention to skin tone, its a feature of their society that dictates income, respect and position. There is no way for them to "opt out" of desiring a product like "Fair and Lovely" without the whole structure of society also changing.