When Dove launched its Real Beauty campaign in 2004, it was groundbreaking and profitable for the line of personal care products. Sales shot through the roof by a staggering 700 percent. The campaign showed women with varied body styles, a realistic portrayal that remains an exception in advertising.
A new bill proposed on Beacon Hill would challenge advertisers to think twice before erasing a model’s wrinkles, shrinking her waistline or lightening her skin. But, if the bill passes, would it work?
Bryn Austin, a Harvard University public health professor, teamed up with state Rep. Kay Khan from Newton to create a realistic advertising bill that would give businesses financial incentives to not digitally erase wrinkles, or alter the skin color or size of their models.
"The digital alteration or manipulation of models’ images to make them conform to beauty standards sets up impossible beauty standards, and it increases the risk of eating disorders and also increases the risk of depression or anxiety and body dissatisfaction that can be harmful in many kinds of ways," Austin said. "But what we didn't know was, How do we solve this?"
The bill would create the first law of its kind in the United States. Other countries, not restricted by a First Amendment, are ahead in addressing this issue.
“We know, one, we absolutely cannot ban digital altering of advertising images because we have First Amendment rights here. Not every country has that. We respect that," Austin said. "So what does that leave us in the U.S.? That leaves us with the opportunity to have tax incentives.”
Under the proposal, if a Massachusetts business with an annual revenue of at least $100,000 can prove it did not make its models thinner, younger or whiter, it qualifies for a $10,000 tax credit. It’s part of a larger vision that would involve a third-party certifying that a business didn’t retouch its images. Think LEED certification, but for digitally manipulated photos.
The bill comes at a time when more companies are making public pledges not to retouch their ads. In the last five years, brands like Aerie, Target and CVS Beauty have ditched the use of Photoshop. It’s a growing trend that has proven to be profitable and attention-getting. But Austin said self-regulation isn’t enough.
“That's a drop in the bucket. We want to see many, many more businesses take this pledge to not alter their images in that way and not contribute to this toxic environment of images that are promoting harmful, unattainable beauty ideals to young people, and this bill we see as one step toward making these changes,” she said.
Doug Gould, a Boston University professor and former creative director at the advertising agency Hill Holliday, has his doubts. He demonstrated why during a Photoshop session, in which he altered an image of a model and her environment. As he clicked through, the background color took on a deeper and more saturated hue. In doing so, the model’s skin tone also appeared lightened.
“One of the things that agencies do a lot is they come up with a look for a campaign, and that look might be like this saturated color that's going to change the skin tone of the model. You can't do this, you can't have a 'look,' because under the way the bill is written, I could not make these changes,” Gould said.
He said a company may not want to spend hours organizing thousands of images in exchange for a $10,000 tax credit. Even if they do, it would be hard to prove how the images were manipulated. Not to mention, a law like this would compromise a company’s creative vision.
“Creativity, in general, is about a look and a feel. And every company wants to have their own brand look, and a brand look involves manipulation. And by having a bill that curtails that, it would create a level of sameness that might not be appealing,” he said.
On any given day in Therese Roeser’s home, she's creating what she calls “anti-diet culture” artwork, which she posts on her Instagram account, @HealingCrayons. When she was a teenager, Roeser developed an eating disorder and struggled with it throughout college and adulthood. She has since recovered and now gives talks to people in recovery through the Multi-Service Eating Disorders Association.
Courtesy Therese Roeser
Roeser, who is from Lexington, recalls the influence magazines and advertising had on her as a young girl.
“I thought to be a good person, valuable, likable, popular, I had to look exactly like the women in Seventeen magazine or Glamour magazine or whatever print ad came to my house," she said. "And I didn’t. And I didn’t feel like most of my friends did, but really, that didn’t make a difference because I felt like that was the blueprint for how a woman really should look."
These days, she said, images of larger bodies or different types of bodies remain a novelty.
“I think about when certain magazines have a plus-size model on its cover, everyone goes crazy and they’re so excited, but when you open the magazine, there are four pages of that model and then the rest of the print ads are women in unrealistically thin bodies, and they all look the same,” she said.
Roeser said a realistic advertising bill is a step in the right direction to address the issue.
“I think the more we normalize human bodies in all their shapes and forms, the better. I think it’s good for people to see in ads stretch marks, dimples, because that’s all real," she said. "That’s what happens to a body as it goes through life.”
