Academics call on ASA to mark airbrushed ads

by Jennifer Whitehead, Brand Republic 09-Nov-09, 09:10

LONDON - Academics are to lobby the Advertising Standards Authority to introduce notices on ads that feature airbrushed models, backing a call recently made by the Liberal Democrats.

A letter from academics Dr Helga Dittmar of the University of Sussex and Dr Emma Halliwell of the University of the West of England is being sent to the Advertising Standards Authority. It warns of the negative impact that airbrushed images can have on the self-esteem of young people, especially when it makes models look super-thin.

It will call for the restriction of airbrushing and ask for ads showing altered images to carry a notice.

The call is being backed by another 42 experts, who agree the images "that depict ultra-thin, digitally altered women models are linked to body dissatisfaction and unhealthy eating in girls and women".

It follows a campaign launched in September by the Liberal Democrats, who are encouraging the public to contact the ASA when they see ads which they believe have been heavily airbrushed by filling in an online form.

The campaign cites one ad for Rimmel in particular featuring the model Lily Cole.

The Lib Dems want a ban on ads that feature digital retouching and are aimed at under-16s.

The ASA has previously said that it does not support calls for a ban because it does not reflect public opinion and that it receives very few complaints about airbrushing.

In the past the ASA has deemed that ads using very thin women can fall in to the "offensive" category. One of the most notable was for a 1998 Accurist watch ad that showed an extremely skinny upper arm with the strapline "put some weight on".

When the ASA issued its judgement ruling that the ad was irresponsible and offensive, it urged other advertisers to be sensitive to the broader messages they are sending out when they use social issues to sell. It stopped short, however, of issuing a ban on thin models.

The issue of airbrushing can be a minefield for advertisers. Unilever brand Dove had made a big deal of promoting it as a brand for "real women", using models of varying shapes, sizes and ages in its ads and even running a viral spot called 'Evolution', showing the extent to which a model is made up and Photoshopped before the image is deemed perfect.

Controversy hit the brand in 2008 when a designer revealed he had been hired to airbrush the women in one of the ads for Dove.

Comments

Kevin Gordon - 09/11/2009

Scientists manipulate variables every day of their life to arrive at conclusions which may not necessarily be right. Is this a classic case of the kettle calling the pot black? Is advertising supposed to end up as some sort of controlled experiment where everyone comes up with ideas for ads under stringent laboratory conditions? Sounds like academics trying to muscle-in on a piece of the action because nobody is listening to them in their own field of expertise.

R Smith - 09/11/2009

Good point. Also airbrush is an antiquated term. The stuff that goes on now, is way way beyond anything so cutesy as an airbrush. My wife and I worked on a Self Esteem campaign with Anita Roddick back in 1997 to expose media stereotypes of women and the damage done by the fashion waif of the time. Image manipulation or mind manipulation would be more relevant ways of describing airbrush. I saw Chrie Blair lose about 30lbs without anyone asking her permission - body manipulation comes built-in nowadays, no one is good enough for the media, everyone gets cosmetic surgery unless they are despised in which case the cellulite and the wrinkles are featured. As Kiki Kendrick says, tell a woman she's old fat and ugly and she'll remain a loyal customer for life - tell her she's fine the way she is and she'll walk away.

john lush - 09/11/2009

Not that I buy make-up, but I'm all in favour of banning air-brushing \(or whatever its called) and anybody who has had plastic surgery from advertising these kind of products. It creates a false image for women to attain. One that springs to mind is Jane Fonda for a L'Oreal anti=ageing cream. She has clearly had both, and should you see a picture of her au natural, she looks like a different woman, her mother...........a lot older and a lot more wriinkly

Faustino B - 09/11/2009

@Kevin They're psychologists not scientists. It would be better if they were scientists though, as the images produced are not of humans as we know them.

Kevin Gordon - 09/11/2009

Hi Faustino, It's an interesting point you make there. Where do you draw the line between Retouching and Image Manipulation and similarly Psychology and Science. They are both fuzzy areas. The implications however are far-reaching. It's another opportunity for lawyers to file lawsuits against agencies filled with conundrums to print money because someone overdid it with the brush tool on illustrator. Commonsense prevails. That's what the ASA are there for arent they? Or should the ASA be filled with Academics? Heaven forbid. I'll get my black hood.

Ruby Rosamund - 10/11/2009

It's safe to say that pretty people sell things, especially to teens and younger people. I think the Lib Dems are fighting a losing battle there. But, if these models are supposedly so gorgeous, why do they need airbrushing? I'm not sure where I stand on this... and it's bugging me!

Kevin Gordon - 11/11/2009

Hi Ruby, the line is a moral one. The question is: are the morals of University Alumni the same morals as teenagers. If not, then Alumni could be seen by teenagers as deliberately trying to manipulate teenage variables to their own way of thinking, and that, in itself could be considered highly immoral as it could be seen as an adult world's attempt to manipulate the thinking of teenagers. Most teenagers I know, don't care. They only allow images to impress them if it's cool, and the last thing that is cool is Academics telling them how they should think.