Does it matter if Dove's real beauty ads were retouched?

Dove's hugely successful 'Campaign for real beauty' advertising has been embroiled in controversy this week over claims the photographs were retouched by a professional artist.

The health and beauty brand has strenously denied the claims, leaving the truth behind the allegations in doubt. But does it matter? If the photographs were touched up, would it undermine the credibility of the brand? Would you be less likely to buy Dove products?

Yes it bloody well matters. It's a complete contradiction.

Yes it does matter. In fact, it matters a whole lot. Dove's USP is that it's for "real women" everywhere, real women who have lumps and bumps and cellulite and stretchmarks and who are not airbrushed supermodels, flawless of skin and perfect of complexion. It's promoted this through its advertising, even going so far as to create an ad showing how other cosmetic brands lie to the consumer and create a false idea of beauty. If it is true that it has itself manipulated its own ad imagery to smooth away "defects", then as a brand it has betrayed its customers' trust and will have a hard time dealing with the fallout.

I think that a small amount of retouching, just to tidy them up a bit, is ok but if they significantly altered them then it does make Dove look pretty hypocritical. Either way the women are still a lot more real looking than in most beauty campaigns.

I agree with Nikki's comments. A bit of retouching is par for the course these days. It's no big surprise if it did happen. It's all part of the process. You can tell the models haven't been significantly altered and retain their original body shapes. I don't think consumers will be surprised or motivated in any great number to stop buying the products.

Yes, it matters, no matter how much retouching, it is still altering an image which is purported to be natural.  Dove has gone far to communicate its 'real women' ideal, with strong campaign messaging and conviction to the cause.  So if they're shown to contradict everything they've set out to achieve through retouching, creative rigour is compromised as their campaign comes across as a series of falsities, consumers lose trust and the brand is severely weakened in the process.

Have to agree with Nikki, too. It's all a matter of degree – of the retouching altered the skin tone or shape of the women, it's too much.

It doesn't matter, they've still got their real shapes/figures etc. A small bit of retouching is probably essential, otherwise the campaign/image would have looked unprofessional. It was still a great campaign and the message is still there.

Love it. 'Real beauty'... with all the good bits enhanced and the less attractive removed. I always thought it was a farce as these 'real women' were certainly erring well on the cute, bubbly, nicely bone-structured and flawlessly-complexioned end of 'real' to most I see in the high street, so there were always judgements being made. But whatever gets the business, media and legions of glossy mag buyers convinced, go for it... so long as it's legal, decent, honest and, well, advertising.

I am not the audience in this case, but should a 'green' product decide to assist its claims (especially if trashing others on the basis of 'real' images) by altering things I'd certainly view it as rampant hypocrisy, if not worthy of checking next week's ASA adjudication.

If the campaign was a celebration of reality - then I think it would lack integrity to use a lot of re-touching.

These are after all - advertising images. Images are not real in the true sense - so there is good argument for leeway. 

The whole craft of producing an image has manipulation at the heart of the process e.g. lighting a studio.  

The campaign is about Real Beauty, not the Reality of Everyday women in the raw .

It is a celebration of the attractiveness of women of all shapes and sizes. It requires the context of the backlash against fashion modelling to make its point. A classic good old fashioned drama triangle - oppression, victim, rescuer. 

It has to live in a highly glossy advertising environment - as commercial investment - who would be mad enough to say to shareholders - we are relaxed about the the plain, shot for real ordinariness of our advertising? 

Get real - this brand aims to enhance a woman's attractiveness - be this about feeling good about herself or to others. It is not about a warts and all reality of life.

It would be an amazing tribute to photographer and crew to have zero re-touching.

So - hat's off to them if it transpires that this is the case 

To dictate - no retouching at all  merely forces more onus casting - oh that sounds like modelling brief?

Why don't the critics post some images to learn from?  

I wonder what the actual modelling brief was? First six in the door? Or, 'thanks luv... you're not quiet what we're looking for?'

And if any flawless complexioned (fair enough, if the product is about skin treatments) but less than attractive ladies (who is to say? But many obviously still do, from marketing to editorial to person to person) were rejected for not being... really beautiful enough?

I do believe that one point being made was that 'the industry' creates artificial levels of an already subjective and rare level of visual appeal by choosing only the tall and thin. Comparisons were drawn, but in conveniently limited directions.

By selecting less tall or thin and making a massive noise about it vs. others, whilst still maintaining 'additional' 'minimum' standards, still reads a bit... selective at best. Which I though from the off.

Not so much to do with retouching, just consistency. 

Where's that chap from Benetton when you need the next level of 'celebration' to get various ad and media luvvies' knickers all a tremble at the next big, um... real thing?

Hmmmm

I hear that some of these "Real Ladies" had touched themselves up too

Some had even airbrushed their bikini lines and stuff

Just saying ! 

 

C'mon ladies GET REAL wouldya ?

You'll be slating them for wearing MAKE-UP next will ya ? or not using naturallight in the ads ?

 

TSK !

SJR "

I hear that some of these "Real Ladies" had touched themselves up too"

 

..err - was that meant to come out like that?

 

- anyway - no it dont sound good - to a consumer, thats for sure.

But the whole process of creating an image is superficial anyway.

Even before touch-ups - camera choice, lens, lighting, setting, grading, etc etc

It's all illusion - at one point it really doesn't become such a stretch to swing the old airbrush in. 

The brief should be - "you can do anything you like - just dont use the airbrush - that's what'l get us into trouble"

 

:-/