Anita Roddick claims that her firm does not advertise, yet it receives free media exposure and publicity through the social causes it champions.

Is this an appropriate approach for a business to follow?

When North American consumers are asked to describe the cosmetics industry, they often respond with words such as “glamour” and “beauty.” Beginning in 1976, The Body Shop provided a contrast to this image by selling a range of 400 products designed to “cleanse and polish the skin and hair.”

The product line included such items as “Honeyed Beeswax, Almond, and Jojoba Oil Cleanser” and

“Carrot Facial Oil.” Women’s cosmetics and men’s toiletries were also available. They were all produced without the use of animal testing and were packaged in plain-looking, recyclable packages.1 The primary channel of distribution was a network of over 600 franchised retail outlets in Europe, Australia, Asia, and North America.2 The company enjoyed annual growth rates of approximately 50 percent until 1990, when net income began to level off. Few questions were raised in the media about this decline in performance, because the firm’s social agenda and exotic product line captured most of the public’s interest.

Managing director and founder Anita Roddick was responsible for creating and maintaining much of the company’s marketing strategy and product development.3 Roddick believed that The Body Shop was fundamentally different from other firms in the cosmetics industry because “we don’t claim that our products will make you look younger, we say they will only help you look your best.”4 She regularly assailed her competitors: “We loathe the cosmetic industry with a passion. It’s run by men who create needs that don’t exist.”5 During the 1980s, Anita Roddick became one of the richest women in the United Kingdom by challenging the wellestablished firms and rewriting the rules of the cosmetics industry.