When the equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, extolled the virtues of Mad Men actress Christina Hendricks as the antidote to the army of digitally enhanced, stick-thin models, critics argued she was simply replacing one unrealistic and damaging stereotype of women with another.
However, Featherstone's comments succeeded in placing the issue of airbrushing in advertising high on the news agenda once again. Meanwhile, reports on the subject from the Girl Guides and the growing momentum of the ±±¾©Èü³µpk10 for Body Confidence, spearheaded by Featherstone's fellow Lib Dem MP, Jo Swinson, suggest this debate will not disappear soon.
Debenhams is one company that has taken the issue seriously; last week the retailer issued detailed guidance to its advertising agencies expressly forbidding them from airbrushing models to make them thinner or change their skin pigmentation. ±±¾©Èü³µpk10ers see the department-store chain's stand as evidence of a 'tipping point' in the debate.
Swinson tells Marketing that she will shortly be presenting the ASA with a portfolio of scientific evidence to back calls for a voluntary code of conduct on airbrushing.
She points to the fact that the ASA's code states that ads must be socially responsible, adding: 'When there is a great deal of evidence showing that idealised media images contribute to body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem and even eating disorders, I believe that it is socially irresponsible to promote these unrealistic images without making it clear that they are not real.'
Slow progress
Marketers would be forgiven for thinking that this is already old news and, in many ways, the airbrushing phenomenon is nothing new. Indeed, Geoffrey Russell, director of media affairs at the IPA, points to Hans Holbein's famous and, some would argue, exceptionally flattering, portrait of Anne of Cleves from the 1530s as an early example of the art.
Nonetheless, campaigners argue the length of this discussion reflects badly on the advertising industry, which has simply gone round in circles on the issue. It is notable that it is a brand, rather than an industry body or regulator, that seems to have taken the lead on this issue. So is the advertising industry dragging its heels?
Not so, says the Advertising Association, which notes that, while airbrushing has risen up the agenda in recent months, 'there remains little evidence in the debate'. However, the body is also keen to emphasise that it will continue to monitor what is said and 'work to review more recent developments.'
Clarifying issues
ISBA director of public affairs Ian Twinn takes a slightly different stance, recognising that there are problems relating to 'airbrushing hips, the elongation of limbs and so forth', and signals a willingness to discuss this further. However, he points to the fact that the very nature of modern digital photography involves retouching. 'There is the issue with body image, and then there is post-production. These are separate,' argues Twinn.
Certainly the notion of disclaimers on advertising has been around for a while, but the proposed flagging-up of airbrushing has been easy for some agency heads to dismiss as ridiculous. The concern is that any disclaimer regarding airbrushing would be on a par with a 'Warning: this product may contain nuts' disclaimer printed on a packet of peanuts.
The fact that agency insiders claim that, if advertisers do not have the ability to airbrush, they will simply seek out thinner models, suggests that there are wider questions that will need to be addressed.
While Debenhams is taking the lead on ditching airbrushing, it is a long way from the high street to the likes of Chanel's creative director Karl Lagerfeld, who mocked 'fat mummies eating crisps on the sofa criticising thin models'.
As Twinn says: 'We don't want to take away the ability of brands to show their products in the best possible light, but they need to do it in a way that is acceptable to society.'
Clearly it is ludicrous to suggest that advertising can be held solely responsible for the complex social issues reflected by recent research carried out on behalf of the Girl Guides, which revealed that 50% of 16-to 21-year-old women would consider having surgery to change the way they look. However, Debenhams' lead on the issue suggests that the tide of public opinion may be turning away from the 'creep of expectation' that comes with these airbrushed ideals of beauty.
This is a level of 'perfection' that Swinson believes is not only damaging, but increasingly out of touch, given consumers' increasing desire for more 'honest advertising'.
'There is a growing body of evidence that consumers don't need to see overly slim, airbrushed, unrealistically perfect-looking people modelling a product to make them want to buy it,' she says.
This is a trend to which many in the industry have yet to wake up.
.jpg)
.jpeg)
