@ProteinWorld vs. "sympathisers for fatties"

The Drum

Oh, dear. A fitness supplement brand in the UK has taken it upon itself to become the patron saint of body shaming.

The Drum reports that, faced with online criticism over its "are you beach body ready?" ad campaign, Protein World decided not only to be unapologetic, but downright nasty:

Twitter

That particular exchange was started by blogger Laurence Hebbard, who wrote about their confrontational social media engagement on Social Media London. Here are some of the curated exchanges:

Someone even made a fake Dove response ad:

As of this writing, the protein shake maker is completely unapologetic. They seem quite happy to bask in the negative publicity (as well as the many Tweets of support from fans).

Is this an example of the tired cliché "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? That remains to be seen. While this kind of obnoxious brand behaviour is bound to ingratiate it to a certain segment of the fitness market, they're also trying to sell weight loss products. Is it really such a great idea to shame people who might actually be interested in such things?

Adopting "being an asshole" as a brand strategy is a risky move, but not an unprecedented one. Now it's just a matter of seeing how many assholes are willing to self-identify by buying the stuff.

Schick's "Basic Pitches" tell women their stubbly legs are disgusting

I am aware that most women in my society like to keep their legs and underarms clean shaven. (My wife is one of them.) But does that make it OK to vilify women's body hair to this extent?

It's just an ad for shaving stuff. It's also one with a movie tie in, to Perfect Pitch 2.

(Interesting side note about that movie: news.com.au reports that star Anna Kendrick upset Hollywood bosses by refusing to strike a "sexy" pose on the movie poster. Good for her.)

But back to the Schick ad. It's intended to be funny lifestyle humour for the average young woman. But the clear message that, female leg hair is disgusting, is reminiscent of the long history of advertisers telling women their bodies are horrible without the right products.

Via We Hunted The Mammoth

Women should (and do) do whatever they want with their own bodies. But these ads contribute to a media culture of bullying women into conformity. It's time we stopped telling them what they're supposed to look like.

H/T Ads Of The World

Urban Outfitters takes an early lead in 2015's Body Image Hall of Shame

Is it a bad Photoshop, or does this model have impossibly long and skinny legs? Either way, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority ruled in favour of a consumer complaint that "the model in the picture was unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful." It appeared in the UK version of the popular retailer's online catalogue.

The ASA ruling stated, "We understood that Urban Outfitters’ target market was young people and considered that using a noticeably underweight model was likely to impress upon that audience that the image was representative of the people who might wear Urban Outfitters’ clothing, and as being something to aspire to. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible."

Urban Outfitters responded with "We do not believe she was underweight."

Another recent ruling against the chain found their ad for a "Fuck my liver" hip flask, advertised with the slogan, "Drink like the rebel you are," to also be irresponsible.

"Realistic Barbie" is back, now with acne and cellulite

Via Time

I've written before about the "Lammily" doll. It's a Barbie-type doll that was computer modelled using more realistic proportions of a 19-year-old woman. In March of this year its creator, Nickolay Lamm, announced a Kickstarter to bring the doll to market. After raising more than five times his $95,000 crowdfunding goal, Lammily is ready to hit the Christmas market.

But what would a Barbie-like doll be without accessories to buy? So Mr. Lamm is planning to release an accessory pack in the new year. But instead of swimsuits or dream houses, Lammily gets cellulite, scars, stretch marks and zits.

The creator told Time, “I wanted to show that reality is cool. And a lot of toys make kids go into fantasy, but why don’t they show real life is cool? It’s not perfect, but it’s really all we have. And that’s awesome.”

IKEA interactive mirror wants you to feel good about yourself... shopping

Adfreak featured a new PR stunt by IKEA in the UK that consists of a mirror that compliments the appearance of people who look into it. Cute, eh?

Adfreak's Tim Nudd compared it to Dove's strategy of building confidence by celebrating "real beauty." But what is a machine that doles out automated compliments really doing?

This is just a fun little story, but I wonder if such obviously fake compliments do more harm than good. IKEA says that this project is trying to address the problem that half of British people don't get complimented by anyone in an average week. But are people really so easily flattered that they respond positively to a robot?

Apparently so:


Self-esteem is a wonderful thing. But the automatic compliment-generator reminded me of something Peggy Drexler, Ph.D, wrote a couple of years ago in Psychology Today. She revealed that the current generation of parents is damaging their children's ability to succeed by over-complimenting them:

Research with children and families has indeed told us that praise has the opposite intended effect. It does not make children work harder, or do better. In fact, kids who are told they’re bright and talented are easily discouraged when something is “too difficult;” those who are not praised in such a manner are more motivated to work harder and take on greater challenges. The unpraised, in turn, show higher levels of confidence, while overpraised are more likely to lie to make their performances sound better. Praise becomes like a drug: once they get it, they need it, want it, are unable to function without it.

The compliments referenced are about academic or athletic achievement. Another school of thought says that more superficial compliments — specifically, when adults endlessly tell girls how pretty they look — actually adds to body image anxiety by programming them to believe that attractiveness is the main standard by which their worth is judged.

Adults are smart enough to know that the IKEA mirror is just a toy.  But adults are not immune to the more subtle effects of false ego-boosting in advertising. Elaine Chan and Jaideep Sengupta at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology published research that demonstrated how consumers' behaviour was motivated by flattery in marketing, even when they were fully aware that the advertising was insincere:

participants in the study were asked to evaluate the merits of a new department store opening in the area based on one of the store’s advertisements. In addition to describing the new store’s offerings, the ad lauded readers for their impeccable sense of style and eye for high fashion. While participants overwhelmingly categorized the pamphlet as flattery with the ulterior motive of pushing blouses, the experimenters were more interested in how their attitudes would be influenced at the implicit level. Might participants develop a non-conscious positive association with the department store, even after rejecting the ad as meaningless puffery? And if so, would this implicit reaction be a better predictor of decisions and behavior down the road? Will even the people who are wise to advertising tricks end up at the register, credit card in hand? 

It turns out that implicit attitudes towards the store were more positive than explicit attitudes. They were also better predictors of reported likelihood of making future purchases, as well as likelihood of joining the store’s club. So it seems that while participants quickly dismissed these ads at the explicit level, the flattery was exerting an important effect outside their awareness.

So, is IKEA making its UK customers more confident about their bodies? Or is it just giving them a quick hit of artificial self-esteem to boost sales, at the expense of creating an even more compliment-addicted, superficial and narcissistic culture?

Let's go back and look at Dove. I've criticized the brand quite a bit for some of its stunts, but here in Canada the Dove Self-Esteem Project is taking a very different direction from the IKEA mirror. It states: "The pressure on girls to be beautiful impacts their self-esteem and can hold them back from fulfilling their potential in life." But rather than insincerely telling all girls that they are meeting a common beauty standard, the program tries to shift girls' self-esteem away from simple appearance.

The IKEA mirror is just a silly little stunt to get earned media. But it also says a lot about where we're going as a society. Or rather, how far we haven't come.

Victoria's Secret wants your daughters to know what a "perfect body" looks like

I don't expect much from fashion advertising. I know that they're selling an idealized self-image, making people think that you can magically transform into an airbrushed beauty if you just buy their brand. It's a fantasy, like vacation advertising. I get it.

But this mall poster, at the new Victoria's Secret boutique in Ottawa's Rideau Centre, still irked me.

The Rideau Centre, at the nexus of Ottawa's bus routes and downtown business, shopping and tourism streets, is the favoured hangout of teens from across Canada's National Capital Region. This display faces the main escalators that hundreds of young people ride every day. And its implicit message, beneath the pun on the product name, is clear.

More than ever before, today's young women see the female body exposed, critiqued, and brutally shamed in the public and private media to which they are addicted. And the young men grow up in a time when viewing and judging women's bodies is a national pastime.

I'm not a prude. I think that nudity and healthy sexual interest are completely harmless. But setting up impossible visual standards for women (at least, those who don't spend four hours a day in the gym before being digitally smoothed and contoured) and emblazoning the words "the perfect body" over them is bound to cause insecurity in girls and impossible "standards" for the boys who will date them.

Add to this that the Ottawa VS includes the "Pink" sub brand — aimed at 15-to-22 year olds — and this gets even more creepy.

Do better, Victoria's Secret. We know you can.

Coke celebrates bikini weather, internet responds predictably

The image above turned up today on Ads Of The World. Created by agency Phibious, in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, it's a sexed-up — but mostly harmless — transformation of the brand into bikinis.

Within an hour of posting, AOTW's Ivan Raszl pointed out that there was already a parody version going around:

Posted on Facebook by Carlos Ríos, the caption reads "a real Coca-Cola's summer model, shall be like."

This is a common reaction to "junk food" advertising, familiar to readers of Adbusters:

Do you see the problem? Yes, soft drinks and fast food are fattening. But do we need to make fun of people's bodies to make this point?

PETA apparently thinks so, too:

Pic via Buzzfeed

It's another example how conflicting priorities and sensitivities make social media complicated. People who are against the corporate food industry want to make a statement about promoting unhealthy consumption, but in doing so they cross a line into "body shaming" that's hurtful to people other than their intended targets of derision.

Dove tests a beauty placebo. So what?

I'm with Jezebel on this one. Dove's new ad idea is pretty bad:



Not only that, but it's patronizing. With Oprah-esque music and hushed tones of concern, it has a "Psychologist and Body Image Expert" tell a bunch of women that they will be testing a patch that improves their own perceptions of their beauty. They are asked to document their feelings and experiences.

Big surprise! They report feeling better about themselves. Then they are told they've been had, in childish fairy-tale fashion, that the real beauty was within them the whole time!

And this proves what? That people are easy to manipulate? That Dove really wants all women to feel beautiful? You can achieve a placebo effect with all kinds of things. But the real challenge isn't to trick women into having a more positive body image; it's to do something about the negative image they had in the first place.

Interestingly, Unilever (maker of Dove) has been selling men an empty placebo to make them feel attractive for years. It's called Axe, and let's see how it celebrates female body image:



Perhaps it's time for Dove marketing to dismount its high horse. "Evolution" was a great campaign. This one, however, is unconvincing and kind of insulting.

Target's pathetic Photoshop disaster

What were they thinking? This swimsuit from Target is featured on their site with some of the worst Photoshop "slimming" you will see today:

That's right! Really, really poor job at cutting into the waist and arm, as well as a hamfisted attempt at cropping out an artificial thigh gap on the model. 

If it weren't part of an ongoing attempt to mould unrealistic bodies in fashion marketing, it would almost be funny.

H/T Photoshop Disasters (@adamzea claims credit for tipping them off.)

More awkward Target PSed thigh gaps here, here and here.

Update: After this was shared on Jezebel and Buzzfeed, target pulled this picture and apologized. (You're welcome!)

Realistic "Barbie" ready to hit stores

Remember Nickolay Lamm's "real woman dimensions" Barbie? After scoring viral gold, he's decided to actually produce his  "Lammily" doll commercially.

From Policy Mic:

Lamm decided to take matters into his own hands after being bombarded with questions about where to buy a Barbie of normal size. The entrepreneur is offering prototypes of his toy to the first people to donate to his Kickstarter campaign, but his plan is to eventually be able to distribute the doll widely online and in retail. The longer term vision also includes embracing diversity by creating dolls with different ethnic backgrounds and body types.

Here's his video:



The final Lamily is brunette, not blonde, and she also fully-articulated, allowing "her" to do a lot more than standing around stiffly:

Would you prefer this doll for your kids? Or will she end up being a real world "Lisa Lionheart"?

Is this eating disorder ad too sexy?

Via Ads of The World

It's a serious question. This woman has the typical idealized body of a model, and despite the scary body painting, the portrayal is undeniably drawing attention to her curves and bare skin.

When I think about eating disorders, I try to imagine looking in the mirror and seeing a funhouse reflection of myself that is always bulgier and heavier than reality.  That's the really scary thing about dysmorphia, as opposed to just wanting to lose weight: it's a chronic mental illness that can kill, because people who have it can't see what they're doing to their bodies:

That's a corporate social responsibility billboard that No-li-ta posted in Milan during the city's 2010 Fashion Week. Shorty after the campaign was shot, the woman, French model, actress and blogger Isabelle Caro, died at age 28.

So there are a number of things to consider here:

1. Is the sexualized presentation of an idealized female body just adding to the problem of media-influenced body image problems?

2. Is the statistic misleading or confusing? While the US National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Eating Disorders says that "91% of women surveyed on a college campus had attempted to control their weight through dieting. 22% dieted 'often' or 'always'," they give the statistic for the actual mental disorder of anorexia at "an estimated 0.5 to 3.7 percent of women." So how are we defining "eating disorder"?

3. What does the Enosh ad want the viewer to do, be aware that eating disorders are bad? There is little here to help those suffering from EDs, or to help their loved ones understand or intervene.

It may seem mean to criticize a well-meaning ad like this, but as a career social marketer I struggle with these same questions in every new campaign I approach.

Cross-posted at Osocio

Barbie's on the cover of the SI Swimsuit Issue - but will anyone notice?

Via Business Insider

Okay, she has a bigger head and a smaller bust than Kate Upton. But the plastic skin tone is bang on.

Adweek's Emma Bazilian writes,

Along with the editorial spread, Mattel and SI are also collaborating on an advertorial component around Barbie’s new “#unapologetic” campaign, which celebrates Barbie’s (sometimes divisive) role in society. “As with Barbie, every year the Swimsuit edition sparks conversations about women and body image, and Sports Illustrated stands unapologetically behind this issue that women, in reality, love,” a Mattel spokesperson told Adweek. “Unapologetic is a rally cry to embrace who you are and to never have to apologize for it.” A billboard teasing the campaign (and Barbie's involvement in the Swimsuit Issue) made its debut in Times Square earlier this month.

#unapologetic is an interesting move for Mattel, who redesigned the iconic doll in 1997 to have more "realistic" proportions, and in 2012 had her "run for President." It seems they have decided to embrace the controversies about Barbie and body image. 

Don't forget, girls: Anything is possible! (Adweek)

In this case, the convergence of little girls' playthings and adult male desire is super creepy. When you read copy like "a playful, behind-the-scenes video series... shows fans what it takes to be a Sports Illustrated legend — like Barbie!" who exactly are they talking to? Who is supposed to buy these cross-promotional dolls? 

If this plays out the way I think it's going to, I'm pretty sure some apologies will be in order.

Related posts:

One of the better "realistic" Barbie dolls I've seen

Barbie joins the RCMP, goes ginger, in Mountie/Mattel cross-promo

My favourite Barbie photo in the history of ever

Now, THIS is a bold lingerie ad

Photo from Forever Yours "Bra School". H/T ABC

Elly Mayday is a Canadian model who, at the age of 25, is living with a rare form of ovarian cancer. A year ago, she was the star model for Forever Yours Lingerie of Vancouver. However, since her diagnosis last summer, her treatment has changed her appearance considerably and now she is... still the star model for Forever Yours Lingerie of Vancouver.

Via Forever Yours

Sonya Perkins, co-founder of Forever Yours Lingerie, told ABC news that she first hired Ms. Mayday for a Valentine's Day shoot in 2013. "At the time, she was a size 14 and had a nice bust and a small waist and big, full hips and behind," she said. "We wanted to represent that look." 

While Ms. Perkins was initially uneasy with Ms. Mayday's determination to keep working in front of the camera, she stood by her model. And now it is paying off.

"In the lingerie industry, it's not something you do," Elly Mayday explained. "It's all about long hair and big breasts and arched backs. But it's important to show what real women look like underneath their clothes. Most people have some issue they are dealing with."

Now, both model and brand are making headlines around the world. And the Elly Mayday fanpage on Facebook has almost 84,000 followers.

On posting the Forever Yours online ad on her page, Ms. Mayday was effusive in her appreciation of the support she's receiving from the lingerie brand and its customers:

It's a wonderful thing to have such caring people to work with. They have supported me through thick and thin — literally— sickness and health and are still with me today.  

As you can see this photo represents more than just a sports bra. Its represent the acceptance we all need to have for one another as well as ourselves. Thank you Sonya & Brian. Getting to know both of you has been a true blessing and you will always have a place in my heart for what you have done for me.  

Over 7,000 dollars was given to me to help me pay for unexpected costs, like my needles this week that cost $1000 not covered by provincial health care. I bought a new juicer and have been able to afford to eat organically as well. just to list a few things.. 

$2 from every pair of underwear sold as well as in-store and online donations. What an incredible gift. I am so blessed♥

I can never thank you enough for the support.pun intended

So, while American Eagle is getting virtual hugs and high fives for its commitment to not photoshopping its typical-looking models,  elsewhere there are brands and models who are willing to show us what it really takes to do something about the fashion industry's body image problem.

Update: Apologies to Sonja Perkins for initially calling her "Jenkins." It was an error compounded from the ABC article.

Is this really "redefining beauty"?

There's a quite a bit of backlash against excessive Photoshopping of models over the past few years. From snarky comments by subjects who don't recognize themselves post-PS and anti-Photoshop marketing campaigns to outright bans on excessive photo alteration, retouching has never been more in the public eye. In some cases, the backlash can even be accused of going too far.

Some magazines, like Seventeen have responded to public pressure by promising to stop airbrushing models to death. And of course some fashion brands are jumping onboard.

Which brings us to this:

The "all natural" approach by aerie, the lingerie brand associated with American Eagle, is understandably getting noticed. AdFreak's Roo Ciambriello calls them "Simple, Revolutionary Lingerie Ads." But as Adrants' ever-subtle Steve Hall points out, "Of course we're never going to see girls in these campaigns that aren't already naturally hot."

While it's laudable that the models don't have artificial thigh gaps or plasticized skin, they are not exactly ordinary people. Not that we should entirely expect them to be, I suppose. Models are hired based on their looks. But attempting to take the higher ground by saying the brand represents "the real you" can expose it to greater scrutiny as well.

Remember when a Dove "Real Beauty" casting call was leaked? It specified "BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE WILL BE SHOWN! MUST HAVE FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS! Well groomed and clean...Nice Bodies..NATURALLY, FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic." (Caps theirs.)

Underwear models, like swimsuit models, tend to have pretty "flawless" appearance to begin with. I get it. Fashion is aspirational, and people want to believe that the clothes will make them seem sexy, or beautiful, or powerful, or cool, or whatever the brand promises. It always has, even long before Photoshop existed.

However, the question for me is whether a lingerie brand that features beautiful young women lounging around provocatively in underwear should be celebrated for not gilding the lily (so to speak) by altering them to remove their few "flaws."

Maybe just a little bit, but not too much. It's still feeding into female stereotypes of what acceptably sexy bodies look like, and how their sexuality is presented to the world.

Is this "Plastic Surgery Barbie" App for kids a sick joke?

At the iTunes store, it's described like this:

This unfortunate girl has so much extra weight that no diet can help her. In our clinic she can go through a surgery called liposuction that will make her slim and beautiful. We'll need to make small cuts on problem areas and suck out the extra fat. Will you operate her, doctor?

The developer, Corina Rodriguez, is behind a range of cartoonish and oddly medicalized Apps apparently aimed at girls, such as "Barbie Dentist & Barbie Dress up" and "Leg & Foot Surgery & Doctor & Hospital Office for Barbie".

@everydaysexism is currently trying to organize a Twitter protest to have the game, which is marketed to age 9 and up, removed from iTunes.

In the interest of pseudojournalism, I downloaded the free App and played it for as long as I could stomach (pun intended). As expected, it mostly delivers a barrage of pop up ads. But in between, and scored by awful stock music, you are actually taken through the steps of a cartoon liposuction using a manual bicycle pump:

I didn't stick around for the facelift.

One of the better "realistic" Barbie dolls I've seen

Recently, I wrote a piece on Osocio about the may attempts people have made to bring attention to Barbie's exaggerated proportions — elongated legs, tiny waist, and huge head.

They ran from the thought-provoking:

To the absurd:

This latest entry, from 3-D printer artist Nickolay Lamm, stands up with the best of them:

Via 3D Prints of The World

Here is its backstory (via ONTD Political on Livejournal):

Artist Nickolay Lamm of MyDeals.com used CDC measurements of an average 19-year-old woman to create a 3-D model, which he photographed next to a standard Barbie doll. Lamm then photoshopped the 3-D model to make it look like a Barbie doll.  

"If we criticize skinny models, we should at least be open to the possibility that Barbie may negatively influence young girls as well," Lamm said in an email to the Huffington Post. "Furthermore, a realistically proportioned Barbie actually looks pretty good." 

Considering how peculiar a Barbie body would look in real life, Lamm concluded: "If there's even a small chance of Barbie in its present form negatively influencing girls, and if Barbie looks good as an average-sized woman in America, what's stopping Mattel from making one?"

Via ONTD Political

But is this a realistic portrayal? As you can see above, I maintain a healthy skepticism about these things. I finally found the original source link, and here is the artist's explanation:

This white model was made using measurements that match up closely with CDC measurements of the average 19 year old woman in America. The end result is what Barbie would look like if she was a healthy, beautiful, 19 year old woman.

Via MyDeals.com

Mr. Lamm adds:

Some people say that we shouldn't pay attention to the body proportions of Barbie because she is just a toy. On the surface, that sounds like a valid argument. But a closer look, through research, suggests that Barbie may lead to the following…
- Heightened body dissatisfaction among young girls (Dittmar)- Unhealthy eating behaviors (Dittmar)-  A desire to achieve a slim body and therefore eat less (Anschutz)

Via Daily Mail

 Thanks to Ivan at 3D Prints of The World for the tip!

Related Posts:
My favourite Barbie photo in the history of ever
Beauty and the beastly business of quantifying it
How would ad agencies prefer to depict women's body issues?
Humans don't look like fashion illustrations
Please stop sending me this "banned" voluptuous Barbie ad
Lingerie models look just like Barbie
This Disney Princess knockoff is accidentally brilliant
Barbie? Is that you?
Barbie 2012
Barbie's big gay Malibu wedding?
Life in plastic, it's fantastic!
Australia's "Barbie Girl" is not sheepish about shilling for meat
Lady BaBa performs for Nokia

Barbara, we have to stop meeting like this!

This vintage ad illustration makes photoshopped ads look realistic by comparison

Retrogasm recently posted this old Jantzen girdle ad from the 1940s. 

Here are a couple more, via allgraphically.com (the second is fromt he '50s):

Portraying unrealistic body types in ads and fashion is nothing new. The difference between fashion illustration and manipulated photos, however, is that it is easy to mistake the latter for reality. 

The impossibly long and slender ladies in the ads above can more easily be dismissed as cartoons.

Ralph Lauren ad, via Photoshop Disasters

Via ynaija.com

Miu Miu ad via The Frisky

And that's the problem with digital image manipulation: It lets impressionable young minds believe they're looking at reality, rather than fantasy.

Jantzen was originally a swimsuit company. It's interesting to note that its ads for swimwear around the same time celebrated the way it exaggerated "curves":

via allgraphically.com

Here, the hourglass shape (itself a challenging, if more biologically useful beauty ideal) is the thing. And once again, it is exaggerated.

And it still is...

Via Joe Crazy