In your face, Reebok!

All day, I’ve been hearing echoes of The Simpsons character Nelson’s catchphrase in my head: HA-ha!

HA-ha! (Image via Wikipedia)

The reason why is because shortly before I went to bed last night, I read the most delicious news story I’ve encountered in ages: Reebok will pay US$25 million to settle false advertising claims for it’s Easy Tone brand of shoes. Why does this make me happy? You can read about my issues with Reebok advertising on my sister blog.

This is a small, but important step towards creating an advertising climate that doesn’t thrive on the plummeting self-esteem of girls and women. And it is also a warning to companies who think they have carte blanche to make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about their “miracle” products to unsuspecting consumers. That is the moral equivalent of grifting and it makes the advertisers in question con artists, albeit con artists with articles of incorporation.

Well the FTC caught on to Reebok’s scam and while Reebok claims no wrongdoing in this instance (I’d like some of what those people are smoking!), the company nevertheless agreed to pony up a double-digit million settlement to put the matter behind them.

More where this came from, please!

My hope is that the FTC will not need to take advertisers like Reebok to task in the future. It’s a small victory that in this case, consumers will be able to get money back that they wasted buying those crappy shoes. However, damage has been done in other ways – to girls and women who have bought into the message that they should strive to look just like the model in the Easy Tone ads. And that simply putting on a pair of shoes can land them their dream body – whatever that is.

It’s only when we as consumers decide to vote with our wallets and refuse to buy from companies that subject us to deceptive marketing practices, that we will see real change.

Until then, I’ll relish the thought of Reebok executives stewing in their own juices over this ruling.

Here’s a bit of advice for them, in the words of my new hero, David Vladeck of the FTC:

VLADECK: So if you`re an advertiser out there, remember that marketing campaigns, no matter how clever, sexy or funny, must start and must stick with product claims that are substantiated. Advertisers must have substantiation for claims before they make them.

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/ftc_orders_reebok_to_pay_customers_110928/

Related articles

• Reebok’s Butt In A Sling (adpulp.com)
• FTC Calls Butt-Shaping Shoes Bogus | News – Advertising Age (thesmileystone.wordpress.com)
• Reebok to Refund Customers $25 Million Over Toning Shoes Complaint (newsfeed.time.com)

Grazia Magazine needed a wedding picture of Kate Middleton that did not also feature her new husband and when they couldn’t find one, they retouched a photo of the couple. In the process of adding a mirror-image of her left arm to replace the right one from the original Getty Image photo, they claim the process inadvertently slimmed her waistline. “My bad” is the message from the magazine. “Oopsy. We didn’t mean to do that.”

Like we believe you.

 I’d like a more detailed explanation of why it was necessary to shrink Kate’s waist in order to add a new arm to the photo. More importantly, I’d like to know why it wasn’t possible to fill the waist out again to its original size after the new arm had been added.

No such explanation will likely be forthcoming, because a permanent slimming of the waist was not necessary for the retouching process. The Grazia editor and art director and whomever else decides on the cover images obviously felt the need to trim Kate down a bit in the waist to achieve a certain look.

This happens all the time in the mainstream press targeted to women or related to fashion and beauty. Why do people working in this industry feel the need to perpetuate a beauty ideal that if not physically impossible, is most certainly undesirable and practically non-existent except on the covers and pages of their publications? What a cruel and sadistic undertaking to relentlessly feed women and girls the message that beauty looks like it hasn’t had a decent meal for weeks.

Add to that the fact that this was done to a photo of Kate Middleton, whose dramatic weight loss up to her wedding day was already a cause for concern for some and definitely a popular topic in the press.

If the excessively thin people aren’t thin enough for magazine editors, who is? Why is it a requirement for glossy magazines to portray women as freaks of nature? Actually, it’s not only unnecessary it’s bordering on unethical. The people at Grazia and all others who engage in excessive photo retouching to create a freakish beauty ideal ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Waisty Katie (Photos by Getty Images and Grazia)

Related articles

• Grazia Fauxpologizes For Shrinking Kate Middleton’s Waist [Photoshop Of Horrors] (jezebel.com)
• Grazia Magazine: Why We Slimmed Down Kate Middleton’s Waist (omg.yahoo.com)
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1364769/Kate-Middleton-Dont-Princess-Diana-PLEASE-ditch-royal-wedding-diet.html

Ugly Old Biddy

"I hate myself. Gotta get me some of them products" (Image via Wikipedia)

Welcome to my first post in my new blog. You can read all about me and this blog on the pages appropriately titled “About the Blog” and “About the Blogger”. Go figure.

Why is Old Biddy angry today? Because researchers in Bilbao, Spain have (in a round about way) confirmed what I’ve suspected for some time: cosmetic and skincare companies deliberately make me feel like crap about myself because they know it’s the best way to get me to buy more products! The short version is that beauty products should satisfy some emotional need in the buyer and that need is most often/most easily brought about by creating feelings of shame or worry – for example, “I’m not pretty enough” or “Good Lord, I’m a raisin” or “Ugh, is that me or Yoda in that mirror?”.

In order to set up that need, cosmetic and beauty product producers put unusually beautiful women into their ads to ensure that the consumer viewing the ad will have the desired reaction – feeling worse about herself. And apparently, it works.  This might explain why we often see heavily airbrushed models without any marks or blemishes in beauty products ads, even though people with perfectly smooth and unblemished skin don’t exist. When they do, they’re called mannequins and you can find them in your local shop window (devoid of genitals).

At this point, we should probably distinguish between makeup and other skin care and beauty products. No one expects to see an Average Jane in a makeup advertisement, because makeup is all about dreams, fantasies and illusions – a more beautiful you courtesy of a little smoke and mirrors. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the idealized images are used to sell makeup to women and personally, I don’t have a problem with that.

I do have an issue with skincare products, however and here’s where I’d like to see certain guidelines adhered to by an industry whose primary promotional tactic is to damage its customers’ self-esteem:

• Kill the airbrushing – or at least print a disclaimer indicating that the model has been touched up in the photo. Don’t wait for the ad to be banned, like L’Oreal experienced in the UK this summer. Unfortunately, it is a rare occurence that authorities step in these cases, but thankfully they set a great example this time.
• Please use models who use your products – and show the before/after result on a live human being.  That means that no one under 25 or 30 years of age should be used to market cellulite creams and no one under 40 anti-wrinkle cures. Seriously. I’m looking at you, Biotherm! Shannan Click was 25 when hired as the face of your anti-aging cream Skin Vivo. Why should anyone at that age even be concerned about aging yet, much less actually using products to reverse the signs?  Are you telling me that I should aspire to look like a woman half my age?
• Don’t sell me a bridge in Brooklyn – I know you can’t eliminate my cellulite or make me look ten years younger in four weeks, so please don’t even suggest that you can. And please show me statistically significant results based on solid scientific research methods, not a claim that “94% of women observed improvements in their skin tone” after using the product according to directions. Did you structure your test using double-blind methods? No? Control groups? No? Then shut the f*** up about what your product will do for me.

Beauty is a business that thrives on Ugly. Not actual ugly, mind you, but the idea and the stigma of ugly. Yo’ve probably experienced that pervasive, uncomfortable feeling of somehow not being good enough, wondering how ugly you might actually be, to the point where you then need to do something about it. The next thing you know, you’ve dropped a hundred on creams and lotions. Ka-ching!

Most people are fine just the way they are and very few, if any of the creams and treatments for sale deliver the benefits their packaging promises. That’s cruel and dishonest and it makes me one Angry Old Biddy.

 Related articles

• Anti-Aging Creams: What Really Works? (everydayhealth.com)