Dove has been running “Real Beauty” ads for more than a decade. Their agency Ogilvy in Toronto cam up with a pretty dope hack/secret weapon to raise awareness with photo re-touchers, art directions and designers to reconsider the messaging that they and their clients are promoting by thinning, coloring and generally adding or subtracting to women’s bodies for benefit of advertising to the masses.
By disguising a desirable Photoshop action in popular blogs Dove has seeded it in a way that folks will download it for their work. What appears to be a skin “glow” or brightening action actually reverses all previous manipulations and reverts images back to their original state and posts a layer of messaging about why they’re doing this. Clever hack for their cause.
Just because it “sells” doesn’t mean it’s right!
Yes, retouching is done for advertising gains. BUT- often the problem is that the photo (underscored) needs retouching, not the model. More often I find that someone who looks great in person and on video, just isn’t represented well in a still shot. We’ve all head the phrase, “the camera adds weight”. It’s true. And it also sometimes makes noses look bigger, brings out shadows and blemishes that are never noticed in “real life”. So I think retouching when used to correct a photo- and not a person- is a welcomed tool.
I read the comments above, and I am not going to disagree with anyone who talks about how severe manipulation of an image is a fundamental need when trying to appeal to a mass advertising market, but I am going to take the counter argument here.
In 2006, Dove created the Dove Self-Esteem Fund. It purports to be “an agent of change to educate and inspire girls on a wider definition of beauty and to make them feel more confident about themselves” (direct quote). We have all seen the videos. We can easily equate Doves actions as a very intelligent marketing strategy, directed towards garnering emotional support directly from its target demographic, and selling product.
The question becomes; is it appropriate for Dove to promote acceptance of the natural body shape, and benefit via sales while doing so? Is it wrong to do so? Would we be so quick to knock any other lifestyle based advertising strategy as inappropriate and self serving?
Example : GoPro, they sell cameras, and use ads promoting an active action based lifestyle. Do cameras make you any more fit than soap? Of course not, but lifestyle sells.
My take: Cudo’s to Dove, as they are actually informing the public regarding retouching, and suggesting that people look at ads with skepticism, and this approach is catching on. A few months ago 17 mag did an issue that included only images that had limited retouching. This is becoming marketable … and that’s not a bad thing is it?
The desire to be thin and beautiful will not change, its inbred and has been for thousands of years.
Advertiser needs to promote this, will not change, as the markets need wont change,
Retouchers will continue to respond to advertisers, as they need to be paid too,
This cycle is closed and unalterable, to the point that we question a companies strategy to open a discussion about it.
Are we part of the problem?
Listen, If your perception of ANYTHING is THAT easily manipulated, then you deserve to be fooled , manipulated, and lied to.
Knock off your crying Dove!
nice!