Airbrushing damages consumer trust in brands
Share
Boots and Procter & Gamble have lent their support to a report that finds brands using heavily airbrushed images in advertising risk alienating female consumers.
The report by the Advertising Association and its research unit Credos, says the majority of women (76%) prefer to see natural images, while 84% think it’s unacceptable for brands to alter the way women look in advertising images.
Almost half (48%) of young women are less trusting of brands that use airbrushing to change the way women look in ads, the report finds.
Its publication comes as brands come under increasing political and regulatory scrutiny over the use of doctored images.
Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone and fellow Liberal MP Jo Swinson have previously called for all airbrushed images to carry a kitemark or health warning to highlight that the image has been altered.
The Advertising Standards Authority has also been quick to ban airbrushed ads. L’Oreal was rapped earlier for using heavily airbrushed or altered images.
Karen Fraser, author of the report and director at Credos says: “The report tells us a lot about the images that women want to see and shows that beauty is good, but faking it is not. There is a trend away from over stylised advertising images - just because we can do it [airbrushing] it doesn’t mean that we should and we’re seeing the pendulum swing back towards natural photos.”
“Awareness isn’t the problem; it’s the unbridled use of airbrushing to create unrealistic images. Advertisers need to be aware of young women’s preferences and considerate when creating campaigns,” she says.
The report is supported by brands such as Boots which says it will continue to use “restraint” when airbrushing and Procter & Gamble which says it will “implement” the knowledge from the Pretty as a Picture report into its marketing and agency teams.
The report also suggests that the industry should get more involved with education initiatives such as the Succeed Body Image programme that has been trialled in schools in the US and Bristol and Media Smart to boost self esteem and support the Government’s ongoing Body Confidence campaign.
The Government is currently gearing up to launch a voluntary pledge in 2012, similar to the Department of Health’s Responsibility Deal, inviting the industry to commit to improve body confidence among women and girls.
Think you’ve created some brilliant advertising that has delivered results. Enter the Advertising category in the Marketing Week Engage Awards 2012 by clicking here.
Readers' comments (3)
amanda | Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:53 am
If a company is not allowed to make (written) false claims in its ads then it should not be able to visually, either. It is lying!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
andi | Tue, 6 Dec 2011 3:17 pm
It doesn't matter what they all say, the genie's out of the bottle now and retouching will never, ever go away. Cut back on the airbrushing, make it more real and it's still fake, so what's the difference?
Skincare brands need the larger than life, uber perfect images they shove in our imperfect faces more than any words in their ads.They need those pictures to remind us that we really should be scrutinising ourselves as closely as they do when they remove every natural 'flaw' from a model's skin - maybe then we'll believe that we actually need such products.
If you saw the unretouched version of a typical skincare advert you wouldn't even dream of wasting your money on trying the product.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jo Farmer, Lewis Silkin LLP | Fri, 9 Dec 2011 4:37 pm
There is nothing new in saying that advertisers must show restraint when using airbrushed images. The CAP Code (UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing) is clear that advertisers cannot use post production techniques in cosmetic advertisements where the result is an image which could never have been achieved from use of the product. The ASA have recently been quick to ban adverts which end up being misleading because of post production techniques, and awareness of this issue is at an all-time high.
But, the issue of misleading airbrushing must not be confused with post production techniques that simply correct and improve stylised adverts. Consumers expect adverts to look beautiful, stylish, idealistic - it’s how adverts sell a brand promise, an aspirational way of life. Post production techniques are a vital tool in selling the image to consumers. Provided post production doesn't lead to a misleading effect, no consumers will have been harmed. Displaying kitemarks when post production techniques have been used seems a misguided proposal. Advertisers won't be able to simply put a kitemark saying "Airbrushed" and then show a heavily airbrushed image for a skin firming cream, as that would still be a breach of the CAP Code, leading to ASA sanctions. But forcing advertisers to put a kitemark whenever they use post production techniques where it doesn't have a misleading effect seems heavy handed - and not something which consumers need for their protection.
Jo Farmer, Partner in the Media, Brands and Technology department, Lewis Silkin LLP
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment