ň&CFF[CO+WIN[!ʼn
These four words motivated a devoted father to quit his job as a marketing executive and develop a campaign to fight the brutal dishonesty crippling the minds of people everywhere. Seth Matlins left his job at Live Nation in 2010 and start the Truth in Advertising Act in order to protect his 3-year-old little girl from ever feeling the need to ask such a question about herself again. With time, Photoshop has grown to become a public enemy. As marketers of different beauty and fashion lines released campaigns that were viewed as steps in the right direction, the public became aware of the psychological side effects of Photoshop. That’s when the Truth in Advertising Act was introduced to Congress on March 27, 2014.i The world needs to continue to make progress in combating the falsifying effect Photoshop has on the public. Specifically, with new legislation such as the relatively new law in Israel, models are safely monitored to be at a healthy body mass index (BMI), and consumers can straightforwardly know when an advertisement has been retouched because of a required statement saying the photo has been Photoshopped. If Israel can make massive steps to protect the mental and physical health of its people, then we can too. Knowledge is power, and increased awareness leads to a healthy and honest foundation to advertise from.
PHOTOSHOP AND ADVERTISING
Photoshop was developed in 1988 as a cheaper, easier alternative to the other graphic design software on the market.ii Photographers who were not professionals could afford Photoshop to alter their own images right at home with little to no previous professional experience. This luxury made Photoshop popular, and companies loved Photoshop’s marketing power. According to an article posted on Steve’s DIGICAMS, a website that delivers digital camera news and information, “Photoshop graphic design is an artistic expression of types of visual electronic information that can be designed for website or advertisement… Using the important features… can help the user create functional and pleasing effects on projects.” Advertisers found authenticity in the way they could alter models’ bodies to capture consumers’ attention. Advertisers found a destructive path right to the mind. When advertisers started using Photoshop in fashion magazine ads, consequences became particularly dangerous. Advertisements were now more able to boast their product in a realistic-looking way, so consumers were vulnerable to the belief that what they were being shown was “the real deal.” According to Pennsylvania State University Biological Sciences professor, Dr. Christopher Uhl, the purpose of advertising is to “create a sense of need” for a specific product. Photoshop helps illuminate these certain needs in creative ways, thus making it a substantially progressive development in the advertising industry. Never before had marketers been able to reach their audience in such visually convincing ways. “Visually-convincing” especially describes cosmetic ads. They are the Photoshop staple – from white-washing, which is the digital lightening of models’ skin and uses a filter on Photoshop,iii to digitally manipulating the length and volume of eyelashes. The National Advertising Division (NAD), the industry watchdog, took action in 2011iv to ban the misleading Covergirl ad that portrayed NatureLuxe Mousse Mascara (see image 1). False claims surrounded this advertisement: Covergirl claimed that this particular mascara could deliver “2x more volume.” Ironically, the bottom of the ad revealed in small print that the model’s eyelashes had, in fact, been digitally retouched. Photoshop makes it easier to advertise to fantastic proportions, but legal and moral issues come into the spotlight. As NAD director Andrea Levine told Business Insider, “You can’t use a photograph to demonstrate how a cosmetic will look after it is applied to a woman’s face and then – in the mice type – have a disclosure that says ‘okay, not really.’” This particular case actually set a precedent for cosmetic companies concerned about the possibility of challenging the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC becomes involved if the NAD’s decisions are not adhered to by advertisers, according to a Daily Mail article. Uniquely, a French cosmetic brand called Make Up For Ever featured a series of natural-looking models in a United States campaign in March 2011 (see image 2). Unlike the vast majority of cosmetic ads, none of the models were airbrushed. Photoshop was out of the question in this case. The French brand’s General Manager, Gilles Kortzagadarian, said, “Our objective for this campaign is to reach consumers who have not tried the product range and prove that it truly creates a complexion so flawless, there’s no need for retouching.” The Daily Mail argues that Photoshop should not be necessary if the make-up does the job it says it does. Nonetheless, the ease of altering images caused Photoshop to start appearing in other fashion magazines – and was not being used to merely fix blemishes or change skin tone.
PHOTOSHOP BLUNDERS
Consumers were made even more aware of the magnitude to which Photoshop could deliver fallouts when advertisers’ blatantly obvious mistakes became apparent. The year 2009v was a particularly scandalous year for the marketing industry because of these multiple occasions of Photoshop being taken too far. One of the instances involved the cover of W magazine. Actress Demi Moore was pictured on the cover, but there were two things that “struck viewers as odd,” according to an article on infamous Photoshop scandals on the Complex webpage (see image 3). First off, while Moore’s head was definitely recognizable, her body seemed abstract, as if it was a model’s instead. Secondly, a chunk of “her” (whoever the thinned-out body belonged to) left hip was missing. Another occasion of embarrassingly noticeable Photoshop mistakes was spotted in a 2009 issue of British GQ, who obviously slimmed actress Kate Winslet down (see image 4). The painfully deliberate elongation of Winslet’s normal body was visible when compared to her unaltered reflection in the mirror. Winslet was rightfully outraged when she discovered her body’s dramatic alteration. Photoshoppers were deciding how an actress’ body was portrayed to the public – most controversially through a “body- confidence” type of light. Photoshop was originally created to help enhance images and portray them with different lighting, but Photoshop had turned into something used, no matter how inadvertently, to affect body image. Setting the standard for the “perfect body” can arguably seem like Photoshop’s mission today. Throughout last year, many mishaps derived from Photoshop fails in the fashion industry. In March, Target released an image of a model in a leopard-print “midkini” (a bikini swimsuit with longer top).vi The Photoshop was done so poorly that the model’s arm is obviously thinned out, there is a spike of the remains of her arms dangling under her armpit, and a huge chunk of her crotch seems to be cut out (see image 5). The most dangerous thing, many parents pointed out (i.e. on blogging websites like ParentDish), was that this particular ad was aimed at young girls who believed that what they saw was a true depiction of beauty. “In a junior bathing suit photo, the chain seems to be reflecting the latest body image fad of thigh gaps. The poor Photoshop was done on a teen model…” ParentDish points out. The online ad brought up talks of the controversies of 2012 and the infamous “thigh gap” (defined by ParentDish as “the gap between the thighs when a female is standing up straight with her knees touching”) trend among young women. Models were being Photoshopped everywhere to portray an unreasonable and unnatural gap between their thighs; viewers were mistaking these pictures for a true standard of beauty.
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH CONCERNS
Photoshopping bodies by slimming them down and elongating them leads to potentially detrimental thoughts among viewers. When young girls, for example, see elongated models who are unnaturally Photoshopped, they may start to compare the altered bodies to their own. Although some people may not think anything of the Photoshopped images in magazines, other people are affected by the illusion of perfection. Allowing this deception to happen can lead to bad self-esteem, eating disorders, and depression. Nearly half of girls in first, second, and third grades “want to be thinner,” and seventy-eight percent of 17-year-old girls are “unhappy with their bodies.”vii Fifty-three percent of 13-year-old girls are dissatisfied with their appearance and body image, according to research from the National Institute on the Media and the Family, and this is most likely affected by falsifying “ideal” bodies in the media.viii In fact, teenage girls are reportedly “more afraid of gaining weight than getting cancer, losing their parents, or nuclear war.”ix Dangers of low self-esteem may come in the form of eating disorders, and studies show that thirty percent of high-school girls and sixteen percent of high-school boys have an eating disorder.x Lobbying against Photoshop in advertisements, fifty lawmakers recently teamed up with members of the Eating Disorders Coalition to discuss a new piece of legislation leading to un-Photoshopped ads, according to Should Photoshopped Ads Be Completely Banned?. Lois Capps, a California Democratic Representative, reasons that “just as with cigarette ads in the past, fashion ads portray a twisted, ideal image for young women. And they’re vulnerable. As sales go up, body image and confidence drops.” When marketers, including large retailers such as Target, Photoshop their ads, they seem to be benefitting only monetarily; the self-esteem of the audience is not a priority when it comes to selling a product. Photoshop’s progress demonstrates how an incredible software invention led to a marketing must-have, now blamed for implementing unrealistic beauty standards. Whether fashion brands are made easily recognizable from their Photoshopped models or their “self-esteem” messages, Photoshop plays a role. Victoria’s Secret, a lingerie brand, is known for portraying women as very thin and “sexy” on all of their advertisements. In early November of this year, Victoria’s Secret launched their “Perfect Body” campaignxi using an ad featuring ten thin models (see image 6). The Internet “got pretty upset,” as Cosmopolitan magazine admits. Victoria’s Secret has taken some fire for their Photoshopping dismays throughout their ads. In one ad in particular, the famous lingerie brand shows a woman with an unreasonable amount of space in between her thighsxii (see image 7). “Spotted by Photoshop Disasters, the main [Victoria’s Secret] photo appears with smaller thumbnails of the model in black bikini bottoms,” the Huffington Post relays, stating the poor use of Photoshop used to promote a product. Even though there are obvious issues with digital manipulation and body image, companies still use Photoshop in their advertising to affect the way bodies appear. Some supporters of continued Photoshop use argue that these altered images provide viewers “an escape from reality,” most notably put by the editor of fashion magazine, Vogue. Perhaps some people actually do enjoy fantasizing about a body that is unattainable or lashes that are too voluminous to resemble even those on a doll. Regardless, the bad outweighs the good in contention when it comes to Photoshop, unrealistic advertising, and the painfully realistic results. Those disturbing results are exactly what Seth Matlins was attempting to conquer with the Truth in Advertising Act. The Truth in Advertising Act states that, “advertisers regularly alter images used in print and electronic media to materially change the physical characteristics of models’ faces and bodies, often altering the models’ size, proportions, shape, and skin color…” and shows an increasing amount of evidence linking Photoshop to harmful consequences. “There is a particular concern about the marketing of such images to children and teenagers through distribution in teen-oriented publications, advertising displayed in public places… and online media,” supports the Truth in Advertising Act. “Anti-Photoshop legislation is a start. We need to show young girls that even the models and celebrities don’t look the way slick advertisements make them look,” pushes Matlins on his campaign website, where supporters may choose to sign a petition to reason against misleading advertisements.xiii
PUBLIC AWARENESS
All the controversies surrounding advertising in the media have also led to increased awareness among consumers of the media. Bringing out the wrong in this type of advertising is extremely important because consumers are suffering more each time they let a distorted reality become their own bodily goal. With campaigns appearing left and right to combat Photoshop - from teen lingerie brand Aerie’s “Real You” campaignxiv (see image 8) to beauty brand Dove’s “Self-Esteem” fundxv (see image 9) to online fashion retailer ModCloth’s “#FashionTruth” campaignxvi (see image 10), the public feels more inept to handle themselves being taken advantage of inappropriately by advertisers. Awareness campaigns are attempting to combat the ignorance of those suffering from falsified body ideals in the media. A digital media literacy toolkit was designed by a faculty mentor at California State University, Northridge (CSUN) in partnership with the National Eating Disorders Association in order to educate consumers about the harmful effects of the media on body image.xvii According to Dr. Bobbie Eisenstock, the faculty mentor of the Get REAL! Project, our media-saturated culture makes it “hard to escape the onslaught of messages about our bodies.” Part of the Get REAL! Project’s aim is to raise awareness about the correlation of one’s media presence to their self-esteem. Typically, according to the project website, those who are more involved with different forms of media on a day-to-day basis have lesser thoughts on their own body image than people who are not as bombarded by advertising. Unfortunately, advertising still seems to trick people into thinking that they are the ones who have the “weird” body, not the model who was slimmed down unnaturally through software. I believe that with increased awareness of the gravity of this situation should also come policy implementations. In Israel at the beginning of January 2015, the “Photoshop Law” was passed that required medical proof of models’ BMIs to be at least 18.5.xviii An additional regulation was placed on advertisers that required clear labeling on ads that used digital-enhancing software so consumers can be aware that what they are being shown is Photoshopped. According to Kecia Lynn of BigThink.com, this law was passed because the percentage of women in Israel suffering from a dramatic drop in self-esteem and body image now matches the high percentage of women in industrialized Western countries. Nothing had been done about the dangerous lack of self-esteem until a well- known model tragically passed away in 2007 due to malnutrition.xix According to a championer of the law, Rachel Adato, “A revolution has begun… this law shatters the anorexic ideal serving as an example for the country’s youth.” Those targeted and affected by destructive advertising in Israel can now be able to realize that models are going to have a healthy-weight BMI and can trust that no Photoshop was done to ruin the body of the people used to promote for advertisers. If images happened to be retouched, consumers can be well aware from the mandatory print on the advertisement.
WHAT NOW?
Now, Photoshop is found everywhere, and the advertisements that do not sport an unnaturally flawless model with fake-looking make-up are hailed. Society has progressed from photo alterations to attempts at legislative alterations since Photoshop has come into the scene. Photoshop evolved from creativity and has indeed transformed the way the world views advertisements and their own appearances; society is acknowledging the implications through controversies of Photoshop in this technological and psychological disaster. I urge the enactment of a ban on Photoshopping models that people are poorly affected by everyday. With society becoming even more educated about this issue and able to react to unrealistic and unfair alterations, companies and marketers using Photoshop can hopefully see more clearly the damage that a simple click of the mouse can do to a society. Self-esteem issues are on the rise, and as this negativity is most infamously attributed to the media’s pressure, implementing legislation such as Israel’s “Photoshop Law” needs to be done. The future of America is at advertisers’ mercy, and the people in power control whether that is for the better or the worse.
i "H.R.4341 - Truth in Advertising Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)." Congress.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. Nov. 2014.
Nov. 2014.
IMAGES Infographic a. http://postcare.com/female-body-image/. Infographic b. http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-man-body-mass-index- infographics-vector-illustration-image36685152.
1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2075232/Covergirl-ad-banned-U-S- watchdog-major-step-restrict-misleading-use-Photoshop-beauty-campaigns.html. 2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1366609/Make-Up-For-Ever-cosmetics- brand-debuts-worlds-unretouched-make-ad.html. 3. http://www.complex.com/style/2013/07/the-biggest-photoshop-scandals/12-kate- winslet-gets-stretched-out. 4. http://www.complex.com/style/2013/07/the-biggest-photoshop-scandals/12-kate- winslet-gets-stretched-out. 5. http://www.parentdish.ca/tag/Target+Photoshop+fail/. 6. http://www.businessinsider.com/victorias-secret-perfect-body-campaign-2014-11. 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/11/victorias-secret-photoshop-fail-candice- swanepoel_n_847322.html. 8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/aerie-unretouched-ads- photos_n_4618139.html. 9. http://www.dove.us/Our-Mission/Girls-Self-Esteem/Vision/default.aspx. 10. http://blog.modcloth.com/fashion-truth/.