Health Warning: Women
ByIs it a health warning geared towards women explaining that it isn’t normal to look like the women in most advertisements or is it a warning meant for the audience cautioning them about their personal health due to the highly attractive women they see in the ad? This article discusses the warning women should receive in order to caution them that all women indeed do not look like the airbrushed women in advertisements.
The article says that “Many young people, particularly girls, do not know the difference between the virtual and reality, and can develop complexes from a very young age.” Not only, though, is the article concerned strictly about airbrushed women trying to sell stylish products but it also touches on politics and product packaging, to name a few.
I thought that this was a very reputable step taken by France’s government and one that stands for social responsibility. We have come to realize that the typical woman depicted in most advertisements is either a size zero, has flawless skin and body features or has the most put-together composure one has ever notices. As the article discusses, this is harmful to women and especially young girls. By airbrushing these models to perfection we are causing the innocent young audience to get a false read on what a true role model and stylish woman should truly look like.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1215017/French-MPs-health-warning-photos-airbrushed-women.html#ixzz0RyDiibUC
5 Comments
September 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Since reading this blog post and the article, I still can’t decide exactly how I feel about the issue of including a disclaimer on the actual ad. From one side of the argument, as a woman I feel that including a disclaimer would be beneficial to young women dealing with self-confidence issues that could lead to unhealthy decisions and lifestyles. On the other hand, if I were to apply this situation to a classical liberalism system, we would not be giving individuals enough credit to use their own intellect to determine the difference between persuasion and reality. In our market system, it is perfectly fine to use bias information to sell a product. What is the difference between airbrushing a woman and using digitally enhanced pictures of a fast-food burger? As you can see, I’m swayed in my opinion of this topic, but as for being socially responsible then yes, of course it is. As advertisers, we have a duty to protect the consumers, especially those who can’t decipher between reality and the virtual world.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I agree with both sides of your argument and I was looking at this from “the protection” standpoint and not from the classical liberalism point of view. Your point about that was very true. I just think, that with all of the criticism of advertising in the first place, this would be a good step to take in order to alleviate some of the negative evaluations. Because most of the audiences DO have the intellect to figure out what is airbrushed/enhanced, why not go ahead and just say that the picture is digitally changed in order to get on “the good side” of critics? It couldn’t hurt, right?… Just a thought.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I found this article and the responses thus far to be very thought provoking. The first thought that came tom mind after reading the post and article was that I dont know how much of an impact a simple two word disclaimer on digitally enhanced photos will have on the target of young females. I see no harm in adding this disclaimer to these ads, I just do not see a resounding benefit either. As Rennie just mentioned adding the disclaimer would allow critics to be a little more at ease, but what about the the young girls who are at forefront of this cause. Will this simple phrase be enough to change their physiological aspirations ? I think that the movement of the French Parliament to get a concept like this legalized is with the best of intentions,however I personally do not agree with the predicted long term outcome that young girls and our society as a whole will change the mental image an “ideal woman” being young, thin and pretty.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I just want to expand on Allie’s idea about how the predicted long term outcome of the disclaimer may not necessarily change a young person’s image of an “ideal woman.” Using cigarette warning labels as a parallel, the “labels and posters have not bee very effective in changing young consumers’ behaviors over long periods” (Hoyer, MacInnis 482). Using this as a guide, I would predict that an airbrushing disclaimer would have similar effects.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
As I did quite a bit of research on the topic of models in ads as well as the newly proposed law in France, I am quite interested in how this whole issue will turn out in the future. I myself am not convinced that just adding disclaimers by themselves will change the consumers’ acceptance of thin flawless models as role models, although this is at least a first step in a socially responsible direction. Furthermore, considering who the audience is (young girls who are vulnerable consumers and can be classified as children in some cases), I strongly believe that the classical liberalism argument that consumers are rational and can make rational choices is highly devalued. Here we are talking about young girls under normative pressure to be accepted and as such they cannot be classified as rational consumers. However, this is a first step and I believe that a better solution would be to show a variety of female bodies in ads instead of disclaimers under only one prototypical woman “the model”. I hope that in the future we will see more realistic diverse women shown in ads which will be more effective to change beliefs and attitudes than pure disclaimers. Still, good progress France!