From a party press release:
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled against an Olay advert containing a heavily airbrushed image of the model Twiggy on the grounds that it was misleading following a campaign led by the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats have called for airbrushed ads to be clearly labelled, and for airbrushing to be banned in adverts aimed at children.
Commenting, Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson, who has led the campaign, said:
“I hope this decision marks the first step in really getting airbrushing in advertising under control.
“If advertisers think that someone as beautiful as Twiggy needs to be so heavily airbrushed, then what hope is there for the rest of us?
“Experts have already proved that airbrushing contributes to a host of problems in women and young girls such as depression and eating disorders.
“Liberal Democrats believe in the freedom of companies to advertise but we also believe in the freedom of women to be as comfortable as possible with their bodies. They shouldn’t constantly feel the need to measure up to a very narrow range of digitally manipulated pictures.”
Note
A recent Liberal Democrat commissioned report by the world’s leading body image experts contained scientific evidence showing how the use of airbrushing to promote body perfect ideals in advertising is causing a host of problems in young women such as eating disorders, depression, extreme exercising and encouraging cosmetic surgery. The paper reveals that:
- Body dissatisfaction is a significant risk for physical health, mental health, and thus well-being. Any factor, such as idealised media images, that increases body dissatisfaction is therefore an important influence on well-being
- Negative effects occur in the clear majority of adolescent girls and women in over 100 published scientific studies on the impact of thin, ‘perfected’, media images on girls and women
- The weight of evidence across a great many studies documents that ultra-thin and highly muscular ‘body perfect’ ideals have a detrimental effect on women and men
- Adolescents are more vulnerable than adults to body perfect images
- A subscription to a fashion magazine increased body dissatisfaction, dieting, and bulimic symptoms amongst adolescent girls who had low levels of social support
- Curbing the impact of idealised media images leads to improvement in body image and body-related behaviour
For more on the Liberal Democrats’ Real Women campaign, visit the website.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
At last! Proof that BBC East's Joint Account quiz existed
US outperformance isn't *all* about Tech
Last West End Christmas Fortnight events today! #dundeewestend
How national insurance increase will undermine homeless services
North London's expanse
Jack Nicholls
Adam
Jonathan Brown
Joseph Bourke
10 Comments
Hold on, you mean there are actually people out there stupid enough to think that photos aren’t airbrushed? Have we turned into a nation of morons?
Great campaign by Jo Swinson.
Hopefully this is a sign that public opinion will now be mobilised to stop this practice.
What the press release doesn’t say was that not all the party’s complaint was upheld. The claim that the ad was misleading was upheld (which it is), which is why a ban has resulted because misleading ads fall within the current regs. The part of the party’s complaint which dubbed the ad “socially irresponsible” was rejected by the ASA.
So I’m not sure what Jo Swinson thinks this case actually proves. Olay have been done for misleading advertising here, no more, no less, an offence which already exists. So how is it meant to feed into a change in regulations, if the current ones were sufficient in this case?
In fact, the only detectable result to the casual onlooker here is that we, the party, appear to have had a hand in banning something, which I seem to remember being assured very angrily on this site was absolutely not the intention of the campaign. I can only imagine that whoever picked on this ad as suitable target practice wasn’t so concerned about this.
Quite right Alix. The intention of the policy was to introduce labelling of digital enhancements for normal adult-targetted adverts. So really, for our policy to have been carried through in this instance, the photo should remain in the advert, with appropriate labelling (e.g (presumably) “TWIGGY DOESN’T REALLY LOOK THIS”). You could argue that we want a liberalisation of the current regulations – i.e labelling instead of banning!
I think I’ll go and have a lie down now….
The point is that with 700 people complalining to the ASA, they upheld the key point that the advert was misleading. Liberal Democrats are not saying that airbrushing shouldn’t be used – only that when images are altered we are informed to what extent by labelling the image.
And Paul is right – the Liberal Democrat policy is about labelling. Proctor and Gamble withdrew the advertisement voluntarily – and that is the point – if we can work with the industry all the better.
The medical evidence in the report commissioned by the Liberal Democrats and has been signed up to by over 50 world experts in the fields around eating disorders and psycholgy.
Had this campaign been dreamt up by one of New Labour’s multitude of talentless drones it would have been absurd and trivial but fairly unremarkable, but the fact that it’s being driven by a so-called Liberal Democrat is really quite shocking.
It’s just lucky for the party and that its very triviality should prevent it from doing any damage.
Lynne: “The point is that with 700 people complalining to the ASA, they upheld the key point that the advert was misleading.”
Yes, and as I understand it, misleading adverts are already regulated. So why didn’t the campaign choose an ad that actually supported the case you were trying to make? I.e. one that couldn’t already be dealt with under existing regulations? Because what you appear to have proven is that there’s no need for any changes to the regulations. You have also, incidentally, given the impression that the Lib Dems are in favour of banning things, by being associated with the removal of this advert.
And please, do not quote the medical evidence as proof that your solution to the problem is correct. The medical evidence is only evidence that there is a problem. The whole point is that some of us freely accept the problem but disagree with your solution.
Alix: I think you’re wrong when you say, ” The whole point is that some of us freely accept the problem but disagree with your solution.” It’s a point certainly, but the whole point? Look at the first comment in this thread as an example; there are people who dismiss out of hand the idea that there could be a problem. Arguing the case against them is a pretty important I think, regardless of which solutions you do or don’t favour.
I’m happy to admit I don’t think there’s a problem. Or rather, that even if there is a problem it’s not one that the organs of the state have any business dealing with.
Of course Olay adverts are misleading. Most adverts for lifestyle products are misleading to some extent, whether they be for beauty products or deoderant or cars or holidays. They’re not selling a product, they’re selling the lifestyle associated with the product. And Olay is essentially snake oil so their adverts are misleading almost by definition. But it was only misleading to airbrush the photographs in the same way that it was misleading to use flattering lighting in the photo shoot or to allow the model to wear make-up or to have chosen an unrepresentatively slim, healthy and attractive model in the first place. And if all that makes some girls marginally more self-conscious than they would otherwise have been, well that’s all very sad and all, but tough shit.
Honestly, this campaign might as well be saying:
Scientific research shows that playing with kittens makes people happy, but froggies make people feel icky, therefore the Lib Dems are going to campaign for subsidised kittens and to have warning labels placed on froggies.
It really is that ludicrous.
The current rules are not sufficient, precisely because they do not accept that retouching to create idealised, perfected images is socially irresponsible. The ASA told us when they received the complaint that they could assess it only against existing rules, and if we wanted to change the rules we should submit evidence to the Committee on Advertising Practice. This is what we did, with the paper from the academics, but the CAP have not yet responded to this. I hope they will take it seriously and pursue the labelling idea. The publicity this week has created lots of support for this policy and that will help to make it a reality.