Should Photoshopped ads be required to carry a disclaimer?

23 September 2009 1,101 views Comments

Thin In an effort to try and stamp out eating disorders, French politicians want to place a “health warning” on photographs of models that are Photoshopped to make them look more attractive.

According to Reuters: if the law passes, all enhanced photos must be accompanied by a line that reads: “Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person.”

And the fine if you don’t use the disclaimer? 37,500 euros ($54,930), or up to 50 percent of the cost of the advertisement!

When I read the article, I was curious to see what other marketers thought of the general idea of this disclaimer. Of course, in an agency setting, we’ve all used Photoshop (or seen it used) before, so would we be opposed to this disclaimer? What about our clients?

IMO, I assume most people KNOW that ads are altered. However, we also should know that coffee is hot and cigarettes will kill you, but coffee cups and cigarette packages are required to carry a disclaimer. So maybe altered ads should too?

In addition, eating disorders are very serious…so it would be morally right to do everything we can to help curb the problem, right? However, will adding a disclaimer to an ad really fix someone’s psychological problems?

Of course, I can’t pretend to have the answers. Rather, this story just created a lot of questions in my mind. I’m torn on the subject, so what do you think?

Should altered ads be required to carry a disclaimer? Will it even help stop eating disorders? What will your clients think?

Sasha H. Muradali

Okay, this is insane. I'm speechless.

I think excessive photoshopping is BAD, and YES, people should know. But then, some photoshopping isn't a bad thing.

I think depending on the case, there should be regulation, but at the same time, it shouldn't hinder creativity or a brand's opportunity to market themselves.

It's kind of like the "fat" models and the ones who die from going into cardiac arrest because they are too thin -- there are boundaries and limits.

We need to find them and use them.

Nicole

Really great points, Mark! I hadn't really thought of it that way. I agree that the products need to be depicted 100% truthfully NO MATTER WHAT...but there's still a little bit of me that wants to say models shouldn't be photoshopped to be too perfect or it does send the wrong idea to younger girls who just aren't old enough to realize these ads are 'shopped. But honestly, I'm torn...as someone who works in marketing and as a woman lol...

BTW: Great meeting you at IZEAfest! You missed out at Howl at the Moon!

Mark Jaquith

Ads should be evaluated for the honesty with which they depict the product, not the honesty with which they depict the models meant to get your attention. And advertisers should not be held accountable for the unhealthy incidental choices that viewers of their ads might make.

Where you might have a case is makeup ads that have been altered to make the makeup seem more effective at, say, hiding blemishes or smoothing skin tones. In that case, the photo editing is dishonestly depicting the product. And I suppose fliers for "escort" services might be another case because (and pardon my bluntness) the women are the products.

Nicole

Thanks for bringing that up, Allie!

I think it's all about who your target audience is. Yes, the girls in the Axe commercials might make us normal girls a little less confident in our own bodies. However, they sell the product to guys. In a way, Axe doesn't care if they offend us because we're not who they're trying to reach. On the other hand, Dove needs to be in our good graces in order to reach us. It's kind of contradictory in a way since they are owned by the same company. However, they are two entirely different product lines and they need to be marketed to reach the right people.

In terms of this blog post, of course Axe is feeding into the "perfect" look, so that's where it gets tricky. But the truth of the matter is, sex does sell...especially when it comes to a product line like Axe.

Very interesting debate! I'd love to hear some more thoughts from others...

Allie

Great post. I agree with both you Nicole, and Alexis - even if disclaimers don't do much to solve the issue of distorted body image among young girls (and guys).. it's at least a step in the right direction.

You bring up an interesting subject though when you talk about Dove's approach. I personally love Dove's approach. I can't tell you how many groups in both my marketing and PR classes from college used Dove as a case study. But of course then the question comes up: Dove and Axe are owned by the same company. They have completely opposite marketing messages and efforts. Axe focuses on sex appeal whereas Dove focuses on how all women are beautiful. I guess my question (without rambling anymore)is does this matter? Does it make a difference in Dove's campaign when you realize the same company is also putting out the opposite message via Axe marketing?

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, it's just great to see the Dove brand using such a powerful and important message. Who cares why they're doing it (... because it boosts Dove sales..) .. at least they're doing it.

On the other hand - how unethical! If the company truly believed in positive body image, wouldn't it sacrifice the potential sales of Axe and promote positive body image from all of its products?

What are your thoughts? This is always an interesting debate in my opinion.

Nicole

Really great points, Alexis!

I agree...it's almost like "what do we have to loose" by using a disclaimer? If it helps even one girl, then it's successful! Especially because a lot of younger girls might not realize that looking like a Photoshopped model is NOT an attainable goal. Plus, our society is SO overly focused on looking a certain way, that this could be a step in the right direction for us.

I think in terms of the line, it would have to be all or nothing. Adding gray area would allow a lot of advertisers to find loopholes, thus defeating the purpose. Even if we're not making the model look better, I think the disclaimer would have to apply to ALL Photoshopped ads.

Great point about finding models that actually do look "perfect" already. It coincides with what runway models are experiencing now. A lot of them have eating disorders because you can't Photoshop real life.

Of course, this is such an involved topic and I can't pretend to have all the answers. Hopefully more companies will follow Dove's approach and begin using real people to sell their products. I think it's working well for them.

Alexis Dias

Thanks for broaching this subject, Nicole. Like you, this brings up many questions for me. But honestly, maybe this isn’t a bad idea! (Particularly after looking at the image you posted… yikes!) Will it stop eating disorders? I highly doubt it. But it may help serve as a reminder that appearances can be deceiving -- and likely unattainable, so why strive towards something that isn't real? Instead of obliterating our self-esteem, maybe we should try to build it up. Adding disclaimers to unrealistic images may not be the solution, but it may help get us there.

Then again, where do you draw the line? A few years back, I worked at an agency that photoshopped a custom photo we took -- changing our model's hair color from brown to gray in order to “appeal” to a different market segment. Should that require a disclaimer? Is it harming anyone? (We did obtain the model's permission, but it did take some coaxing!) Then again, you don’t hear of many companies fast-forwarding the aging process, or using special effects to make someone appear larger or more unattractive than they really are…

Ultimately, a disclaimer isn’t the end of the world. Don’t like it? Then don’t alter the photo. But that brings up yet another point – if advertisers take this route, are we risking the chance that they actually find models that really are that skinny/flawless/wrinkle-free/etc. – further perpetuating this problem?