Advertisers refute 'beauty industry perpetuates low self-esteem' claim

Major beauty brands such as Boots, L’Oréal and Procter & Gamble have rejected claims that the ad industry perpetuates low self-esteem by creating an unattainable image of women in the media.

/h/v/y/julia_roberts.jpg

Julia Roberts in banned beauty ad

In the same week that the Advertising Standards Authority banned a L’Oréal print campaign for featuring an airbrushed image of actress Rachel Weisz, senior marketers from the companies appeared before the All Party Parliamentary Group on Body Image in Westminster.

Asked by Conservative MP Caroline Nokes if the success of the beauty industry was based on perpetuating a lack of confidence in order to sell more products, L’Oréal group director of communications Louise Terry defended the cosmetics firm’s advertising as “aspirational” and “sincere”.

She said: “It’s fair to say that images are airbrushed but never to make people thinner. We try to be sincere and try to get the line right between aspirational and going too far. We spend a lot of time on what is appropriate and we have a good industry watchdog [the ASA] that names and shames us when we get it wrong.”

Terry continued: “People are discerning. If they use a product and it doesn’t work, they probably will not use it again. But we get consumers buying our products again and again.”

The ASA’s latest ruling against a L’Oréal campaign follows bans for the brand’s ads starring model Christy Turlington and actress Julia Roberts last year.

Elizabeth Fagan, marketing director for Boots, which promotes its No.7 range by trumpeting the unenhanced stars of the ads, added: “We want all our brand communications to be engaging, inspirational and make people feel good. We don’t want it to be unattainable but want women to think ‘on a good day I could look like that’.

“Women don’t want to see unattractive or everyday people – they want to be aspirational.”

All-party group chair Jo Swinson MP, who set up the anti-airbrushing Campaign for Body Confidence with equalities minister and fellow Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone, criticised the advertising industry for failing to be proactive and just reacting to complaints rather than looking at the practices employed across the beauty industry.

Swinson claims that issues of diversity in the ad industry can’t be investigated if the ASA only looks at ads on a case-by-case basis.

Her separate complaint led to the ASA banning the print campaign featuring Weisz. 

Rosi Prescott, CEO, of Central YMCA which is acting as Secretariat of the inquiry says: “All sectors need to take action to tackle the growing anxiety young people have with their body image.  Advertisers stand accused of body bigotry in the images they use, and from our research we know the public feel that they are still too reliant on using ultra-thin or highly muscular body types in advertising and marketing.  We hope that this inquiry will provide an opportunity for constructive engagement with advertisers to find out how we can work together to promote body confidence.” 

Readers' comments (4)

  • L'Oreal's Louise Terry still doesn't get it when she admits to "airbrushing, but not to make people thinner". Her products don't aim to make people thinner, but to make people look better, and airbrushing their ads defeats the purpose of showcasing what the products actually do.

    I have said this many times, but if a foundation, mascara or hair product ad needs to be enhanced with airbrushing, extensions or whatever, it is not a fair representation of the product. If a brand feels their product needs artificial enhancement in order to sell it, that must be down to an insecurity that the product will not sell otherwise.

    Until beauty brands own up to this and abandon this ridiculous mindset they will continue to be targeted for irresponsible selling and be made scapegoats, as this article points out, for being responsible for promoting body image issues.

    They need to stop hiding behind this facade of airbrushing and giving meek justifications for it, as Louise Terry has weakly offered, and be pioneers in promoting genuine real beauty.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Totally agree with MaryLou And it's the constant bombardment of all sorts of 'aspirational' ads that lead women to believe that's the acceptable level & anything less is just not good enough

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Shouldn't there be stricter controls on the use of pseudo science in cosmetics ads? All those products that claim to improve tissue beneath the epidermis should be called out by a b***s*** detector. If my skin was thapermeable to lift creams all my bodily fluids would have leaked out by now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They have products to sell and the way they sell this crap is making us all feel a bit crap about ourselves by promoting their products using unattainable unrealistic images . We are caught hook line and sinker they are very smart its all manipualtion.
    I feel bombarded by constant imagery which if if not careful and aware really can be very damaging, its like i have to keep reminding myself to buy out of it buy out of it.

    I hope for change .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory

Related images

Job of the Week

Top Jobs

social

+media Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
knowledge+bank