Download “Daddy, am I ugly?” These four words motivated a devoted father to

“Daddy, am I ugly?”
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 three-year-old little girl from ever
feeling the need to ask such a question about herself.
Photoshop was developed in 1988 as a cheaper, easier alternative to the
other graphic design software on the market.i 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,ii to
digitally manipulating the length and volume of eyelashes.
The National Advertising Division (NAD), the industry watchdog, took action
in 2011iii 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
1
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.
Consumers were made even more aware of the magnitude to which
Photoshop could deliver fallouts when advertisers’ blatantly obvious mistakes
became apparent. The year 2009iv 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 7). 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 8). 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).v 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 3). 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.
2
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. Allowing this to happen can lead to bad self-esteem,
eating disorders, and depression. Fifty-three percent of thirteen-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.vi 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” campaignvii using an ad featuring ten thin
models (see image 4). 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 thighs (see image 5).
“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.viii 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.
Over time, Photoshop had grown to become the 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 side-effects of Photoshop. That’s
when the Truth in Advertising Act was introduced to Congress on March 27, 2014.ix
The 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
3
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. “AntiPhotoshop 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
founder Seth Matlins. His campaign includes a website where supporters may
choose to sign a petition to reason against misleading advertisements.x
The controversies surrounding advertising in the media have also led to
increased awareness. 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” campaign (see
image 6) to beauty brand Dove’s “Self-Esteem” fund (see image 7) to online fashion
retailer ModCloth’s “#FashionTruth” campaign (see image 8), 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.xi 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, 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 on January 1, the “Photoshop Law” was
passed that required medical proof of models’ body mass index (BMI) to be at least
18.5.xii 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 an underweight model tragically
passed away.xiii 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.
4
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. Eating disorders are on the rise, and as they
are most infamously contributed to a negative self-confidence from the media’s
pressure, implementing legislation such as Israel’s “Photoshop Law” needs to be
done.
1. i
2. ii
3. iii
4. iv
5. v
6. vi
7. vii
8. viii
9. ix
10. x
11. xi
12. xii
13. xiii
5