As if an embargo on petrol powered cars and large wine glasses weren’t enough the party who can tackle no issue without the word ban spewing forth now have one for the advertising industry. In their infinite wisdom the Liberal Democrats are demanding a ban on retouching all adverts and images targeted at under 16’s. Photo manipulation using programmes such as Photopshop to create an illusion or deception has been a standard process since the digital age began.
Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson, responsible for the policy paper Real Women, says, ‘As technology has advanced, adverts are ever more retouched, airbrushed and detached from reality. Spots and blemishes are removed, complexions made flawless, waists and legs made slimmer by digital liposuction. Yet these are the images that young people are aspiring to.
‘Young girls should be encouraged into healthy lifestyles through education, with modules on media literacy and body image alongside health and wellbeing.’
This might be music to the ears of parents and Guardian readers across the country but what of the suits? The airbrushed skin, perfect silhouettes and aspirational compositions have become industry standards.
‘To be honest I’m ignoring it because it’s ridiculous,’ says account director for M&C Saatchi Simon Reynolds. ‘Yes the old and haggard Kate Moss won’t be useable anymore but the truth is models are pretty good looking anyway. It could help put an end to celebrity culture but the real losers aren’t going to be the agencies but the clients who won’t be able to have the shot they want.’
Advertising agency account director for AMV/BBDO James Drummond agrees this is where the issue would lie, ‘If you deliver a false image or impression of a product, place or person you will only disappoint and discourage a repeat engagement with the brand. Retouching helps to keep these engagements sweet.’
Clients want Kiera Knightly with bigger boobs, Gisele Bündchen without the baby bump and Kate Winslet without the puppy fat. The latest woman to cause a stir is would-be model Lizzie Miller who appeared in the Glamour magazine with a roll of fat still in tact.
Robyn Exton, account director at branding agency Dave, says, “If you look at Lizzie Miller, her face has still been retouched. It’s not about retouching it’s about what you consider to be body-beautiful. If Swinson wants to make a change she needs to change society’s attitudes to beauty.’
Exton proposes a ten per cent allowance for retouching so ‘for a front cover we could nip Beyonce’s arms in but not change her entire body shape’.
‘At the end of the day marketing is about telling lies and nicer versions of the truth. People don’t want to buy a magazine that’s got an obese person on the front.’
Despite comments like those from Blogger Dick Puddlecoat, ‘The latest attention seeking ploy from this consistently overshadowed party was Jo Swinson’s ludicrous call for a ban on airbrushing. This time Jo has invoked the chiiildren to push her bizarre and naïve uni sociology thesis as justification for such poppycock,’ Swinson’s fears for society are not wholly unfounded.
When asked for a comment, Mother account director Nick Andrew let slip this story. Upon seeing the image of Lizzie Miller Andrew doctored the image by circling the fat with an arrow saying, ‘not for me’ and sent it on email to five of his male friends.
‘I think that if a naked man was presented in front of a group of girls, they would do the same,’ was Andrew’s defence. ‘People are entitled to their opinion, you can’t go back to a warts and all society.’
As long as this is the reaction to such images the advertising industry will continue to find ways around the law. Kate Hindley account executive at Alphabet Advertising explains, “Even though the advertising industry would be in total shock accounts like beauty and fashion will think of different ways to target them.
They’ll find people that don’t need retouching. The content won’t change. They will just choose models with naturally good skin. Flattering clothes and clever lighting can get around it. Evangeline Lilly never has retouching.
“You’ll end up getting more illustrations and more graphics or more makeup. Look at Susan Boyle, there’s a lot you can do. They send them to the dermatologist. I’ll admit I’m out for a more aesthetic-pleasing world and why should the nanny state say what I can and cannot see? There needs to be more money on educating children not protecting them.”
This may well be the answer. Just because a child knows Father Christmas isn’t real advertisers are wilfully naïve to think even the most consumer savvy children are aware of the extent of retouching. An adult may admire the cartoon figure of Jessica Rabbit but they know it is just that, a cartoon.
