Brands
Will fairness brands bid adieu?
NEW DELHI: After beauty standards and the flawed idea of "fair is beautiful" caught the limelight amid the #BlackLivesMatter protests in the US, brands have taken a much-needed step across countries. Just yesterday, Hindustan Unilever (HUL) announced that it will be dropping the word 'fair' from its infamous skin whitening product Fair & Lovely and soon announce a new name.
Supporting the #BlackLivesMatter cause, American multinational giant Johnson & Johnson also decided to stop selling its skin lightening products range globally. Clear & Clear will no longer be sold in India and Neutrogena will not be available in the Asian and Middle Eastern markets.
The fairness cream market in India is dominated by HUL, P&G, Garnier, L’Oreal and many others. Brands over the years have played on and perpetuated the idea that fair skin is everything and have been criticised for provoking thoughts which encourage discrimination on the basis of colour.
Fair & Lovely, endorsed by actress Yami Gautam, is considered to be one of HUL's best-selling products, unhampered by criticism.
According to a recently published report, "India Fairness Cream & Bleach Market Overview, 2018-2023", the women's fairness cream category is anticipated to achieve market revenues of more than Rs 5000 crore by the year 2023.
While Johnson&Johnson recently called it quits from the fairness cream market, could we see other brands, especially Indian ones, taking the same route or revise their way of communicating to viewers?
Dentsu Impact VP planning Krittika Chakraborty shares, “The Indian fairness cream market is dominated by HUL whose Fair & Lovely has an 80 per cent share. It is, of course, very much possible that brands like Fair & Lovely may stop advertising during this time as this debate boils over in the international arena. Ad spends might be affected in the short to medium term in India but it is doubtful whether it would directly impact demand for these products.”
Commwiser Consultants co-founder Aman Abbas says that the fetish for fair skin in India is deep-rooted and centuries old. Therefore, it will take many decades of active campaigns and a lot of education for this to start fading off.
There has been a heated debate against such advertisements, as a result, the ministry of health and family welfare finalised drugs and magic remedies (objectionable advertisements) (amendment) Bill, 2020 under which the proposed draft amendment bans advertisements of products that promote fairness creams, enhance sexual performance, cure premature aging and greying of hair, improvement in height of children or adults, among others. The violators will face a penalty up to Rs 50 lakh and can be served prison time for five years.
"Interestingly, the laws are more focused on the ‘misleading claims’, which means whether the creams are actually making one fair or not and whether the ingredients are safe. There is little focus on the very concept of it," Abbas points out.
He also adds, “Global brands like J&J have taken the right step and it must be lauded. But there may be many local players who would view J&J’s exit as an opportunity and move in to fill the gap."
Over the years brands have diversified their business to the male fairness segment as well with leading actors as brand ambassadors including Shah Rukh Khan, Hrithik Roshan, Varun Dhawan and Kartik Aaryan. Indian cricket team captain Virat Kohli was also a former brand ambassador but from 2017, he has refused to endorse fairness brands and others that he doesn't personally use.
Chakraborty says that even if the marketing angle changes, the promise of the product stays the same and that needs to be addressed.
“An answer might lie in ranges and narratives that talk about healthy skin with an equal celebration of all skin tones and face types, not just the ones that fit our prevailing notions of beauty,” she says.
Echoing the same perspective Abbas shares, “The reality is that the society would still ‘need’ fairness creams for the age-old ‘approval’ to look beautiful. So, the products will exist and sold in the market. The brands have an image to keep, appear sensitive to the environment and say the right things. In the days of social media activism that impact the brand image and even sales directly, brands may ‘respond’ to the environment and change the communication to something subtle.”
Chakraborty strongly opines that such products should not exist as they reinforce a dangerous and regressive stereotype.While it's desirable to believe that a change in marketing tactics may cut down demand, she says it's wishful thinking.
“While multinationals might take global calls to end the glorification of light skin or certain beauty standards through their products and advertising, the majority of Indians will still continue to hold light skin in high regard," she says.
Experts believe that the recent backlash will not negatively impact any Indian brand and they will not stop selling such products as they clock huge revenue.
Brands
UK’s OnlyFans seeks US investor at $3bn valuation after owner’s death
The adult video platform is seeking stability after the death of its billionaire owner
LONDON: OnlyFans is looking for a new partner. The London-based adult video platform is in advanced talks to sell a minority stake of less than 20 per cent to Architect Capital, a San Francisco-based investment firm, in a deal that would value the business at more than $3bn (£2.2bn).
The move is driven by an urgent need for stability. Leonid Radvinsky, the Ukrainian-American billionaire who owned OnlyFans, died of cancer last month at the age of 43, leaving the future of one of Britain’s most profitable privately held businesses suddenly uncertain.
The choice of Architect Capital is not arbitrary. The firm has deep expertise in financial services, which aligns neatly with OnlyFans’ ambitions to offer banking products to its creators, many of whom have long struggled to access basic financial services because of the nature of their work.
The numbers behind OnlyFans are, by any measure, staggering. The platform posted revenues of $1.4bn in the year to 30th November 2024, with a pre-tax profit of $684m, up four per cent on the prior year. Payments to creators totalled $7.2bn over the same period, a rise of nearly ten per cent. Radvinsky personally collected $701m in dividends from the business in 2024 alone, on top of more than $1bn in such payments he had already received. The platform, run through its parent company Felix International, hosts 4.6m creator accounts, with performers keeping 80 per cent of subscription proceeds and the platform pocketing the remaining 20 per cent. It has 377m fan accounts in total.
The current minority stake talks represent a notable scaling back of ambitions. In January, OnlyFans was reported to be in discussions with Architect about selling a majority stake of 60 per cent. Before that, the company had explored a sale to a consortium led by Forest Road Company, a Los Angeles-based investment firm. Neither deal materialised.
OnlyFans has built an enormously lucrative business on content that mainstream finance has long refused to touch. Now, with its owner gone and a $3bn valuation on the table, it is looking for the kind of respectable institutional backing that might finally persuade the banks to take its calls.
