Like jenifer anniston for example wont be long before she cant get film roles as her career has been built on her beauty she is not a good actress so people will stop casting her. Big deal, i feel so sorry for her
The point I was making is that some advertisement agencies and some men are claiming that these women are an ideal, when in reality they aren't. It's distorting the facts, IMO.
The only people I have seen 'claiming these women are an ideal' are actually the whingers!
Nice attempt to blame men there though, I forgot that the fashion industry is completely ran by men with no female input...
It is the typical feminist cult response, 'Its all Mens fault...'
So in all less than 400 people actually bothered to officially complain (and not even all those complaints were about it being offensive).
Seems to me that in general, despite all the press coverage people, just didn't care about it that much.
Also once again shows how ridiculous online petitions are, many will click a button to agree with something but not care enough to actually take a few more seconds to lodge an official complaint.
Put it in context of an ad featuring what the audience is 'supposed' to look like, add a product, and you have a company telling you to do something about it if you don't look like her.
If someone feels like that, that is what they have chosen to believe.
The company cannot be blamed because self-conscious people get secure when faced with people who don't.
This product was not even targeted as the 'insecure because my body isn't like theirs' people, the people who aren't willing to do the necessary exercise and eat the correct diet to allow them to get a body similar.
It is aimed at the people that are willing to put the effort, will exercise and eat healthily in order to get the body they want.
Just because some people would rather be lazy and sit on their arse while complaining that people them aren't used to sell products, doesn't mean it should be stopped!
Interestingly, the ad seems to have been created in-house, not by an agency. Explains a lot, especially how all the media spend was London-centric and out-of-home. Also, the ad doesn't feature on their facebook page. On that, besides the arse at the top, the line's been watered down to 'Be the best version of you'.
A company knows a lot more about their target audience than an ad agency, since they are the ones that actually deal with their customers.
The ASA bans stuff or pulls campaigns in their current form. I've had posters torn off the walls by outraged blokes in the workplace. It's a reaction and usually informative.
A workplace is a different matter, these ads were placed in the public domain.
Really? So the advert of a healthy, young, attractive woman is not what kicked this off?
What did they complain about if it wasn't about having to see it?
Not being in excellent physical condition does not equal being fat and/or insecure.
No but complaining that a woman used in an advert is in a good physical condition, whilst expecting to be pandered to because you are not generally does indicate your insecure.
After all, if you are totally happy with your own body, what reason would you have to complain about a fit person being used in an advert?
Now to me looking at a female and saying she is underweight and unhealthy, is just as bad as looking at another carrying a little extra bodyfat and saying she looks overweight and unhealthy. I think it's best just not to judge women on how they look fullstop.
Don't ya know it is perfectly fine for unfit people to body shame those who take care of their body.
Don't ever body shame an unfit person though, they will go off their tits.
Don't ya know it is perfectly fine for unfit people to body shame those who take care of their body.
Don't ever body shame an unfit person though, they will go off their tits.
There does seem to be a double standard on DS, it's certainly not the first time I've mentioned it.
It would be interesting to know what the figures of the protesting women are like? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way but would a woman with a stunning figure take offence at the poster or just women who don't have stunning figures?
Interestingly, the ad seems to have been created in-house, not by an agency. Explains a lot, especially how all the media spend was London-centric and out-of-home. Also, the ad doesn't feature on their facebook page. On that, besides the arse at the top, the line's been watered down to 'Be the best version of you'.
What is objectionable though, is the large scale objectification of women such as an advertising campaign which is not a one-to-one situation where a person has the capability to make an immediate rebuttal to a specific offender.
So you are against women willingly using their beauty to earn a living?
After all they aren't forced to be a model, they choose to.
You can blame men all you like, but whilst women continue to treat other women as mindless puppets who only do what men tell them to do nothing is going to change.
An advertising campaign sets out to get the attention of the widest possible audience and affect as many people as possible. It may well be targeted to a specific potential client group, but it cannot but help being seen beyond that and many people who do not identify with that image, or product or social grouping have to make their protest in a public way.
And this advert was not aimed at the sort of people that whinges that attractive people are used to sell products. The people whinging are not the target audience, they are not people who are willing to not only eat healthily and exercise in order to get the body they are happy with.
Feminist organisations set out to speak for those people. The ones who do not want to be treated as pieces of meat. The ones who buck against being stereotyped in what their image should be. The ones who don't want to be pigeon-holed. The ones who are frightened, or intimidated or feel they are being forced to conform to something they're not, and might well not want to be.
Unless it suits them. The Feminist cult often forgets that these women are people to, have chosen to become models and make a living out of it.
But of course it is seen as perfectly fine for the Feminist cult to ignore this, treat them as objects and then to complain about women being treated as objects...
Why should we be made to feel that we must look like THIS or weigh THAT and anything outside those parameters is something to feel bad about?
You choose to do this! I could have chosen to become a ripped man with washboard abs and muscles. I haven't, I am quite happy with my beer gut and man boobs, and I don't devote my time bitching because my personal choice is pandered to in advertising campaign!
Advertising sets out to create a positive image for its client group. Something that those who identify with it want to attain, but it also has the effect of creating a massive negative feeling in those who don't want to be a part of it.
Exactly, advertising is designed to sell the product to the best effect. It is designed to make the product appealing so that the target audience buys it.
Having an unfit person advertising a fitness product wouldn't sell the product either.
You mean a poll in which largely only whingers and body shamers would be interested in?
I wonder why it got the results it did.
I bet if the actual target audience of the product were asked the result would not be the same.
I wouldn't trust any YouGov poll or other polling company. We only have to look at how badly they got the election results wrong to realise they can't be trusted. The only fact we really have is that 400 people complained about the advert. Now out of a population of around 65 million people, that's really not an awful lot of people at all. Its crazy that the ASA are acting on such a tiny number of complaints. Thankfully they aren't funded by the tax payer.
If someone feels like that, that is what they have chosen to believe.
The company cannot be blamed because self-conscious people get secure when faced with people who don't.
BIB, it's what they've been told by the advertising. This is how advertising works.
Sorry, can't make head nor tail of your second sentence.
This product was not even targeted as the 'insecure because my body isn't like theirs' people, the people who aren't willing to do the necessary exercise and eat the correct diet to allow them to get a body similar.
It is aimed at the people that are willing to put the effort, will exercise and eat healthily in order to get the body they want.
What leads you to believe that healthy, fit people would opt for slimming pills? And if they were targeting these healthy, fit people, why not use fitness mags/websites or the usual channels instead of plastering an expensive campaign all over prime sites in London?
Your option is a bit like targeting liposuction at supermodels.
Just because some people would rather be lazy and sit on their arse while complaining that people them aren't used to sell products, doesn't mean it should be stopped!
You've got no evidence of any of this. I'm spotting a pattern.
Really? So the advert of a healthy, young, attractive woman is not what kicked this off?
What did they complain about if it wasn't about having to see it?
In the article you were referring to, no one made specific complaints about the model herself. Did you not read it?
No but complaining that a woman used in an advert is in a good physical condition, whilst expecting to be pandered to because you are not generally does indicate your insecure.
That isn't what they were complaining about. By your logic, they are not insecure.
It would be interesting to know what the figures of the protesting women are like? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way but would a woman with a stunning figure take offence at the poster or just women who don't have stunning figures?
I would imagine that the women complaining about that particular poster don't have stunning figures....
Why would anyone take offence at an attractive woman with a good figure?
Loads of posters are complaining about women being seen as sex objects etc, but in all fairness, it really is a non argument, considering that men are used in adverts in just the same way. Well, it seems like that to me anyway!
Would the bloke who advertised those jeans in a launderette worked as well if he had had a flabby stomach and man boobs! I sincerely doubt that ;-)
It would be interesting to know what the figures of the protesting women are like? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way but would a woman with a stunning figure take offence at the poster or just women who don't have stunning figures?
I don't know specifically about the women who were protesting, but I have friends who have better figures than the woman in the advert (IMO) who took issue with the advert.
They hold a view / principle on what they consider to be appropriate and responsible advertising that is in no way linked to what they themselves look like.
I don't agree with all of their views on this advert, but I'm not going to start labeling them as insecure just because they're morally opposed to something.
I[...]
Would the bloke who advertised those jeans in a launderette worked as well if he had had a flabby stomach and man boobs! I sincerely doubt that ;-)
The laundrette ad is 20 years old. If they'd run this ad 20 years ago it wouldn't have been so out of touch with its audience. Time's moved on.
I would imagine that the women complaining about that particular poster don't have stunning figures....
Why would anyone take offence at an attractive woman with a good figure?
Loads of posters are complaining about women being seen as sex objects etc, but in all fairness, it really is a non argument, considering that men are used in adverts in just the same way. Well, it seems like that to me anyway!
Would the bloke who advertised those jeans in a launderette worked as well if he had had a flabby stomach and man boobs! I sincerely doubt that ;-)
These so called feminist campaigners choose to ignore it when it's the other way around as it doesn't fit their argument of blaming men for everything. Women lust over men for their looks just as much if not more than blokes do of women. Either way it's perfectly healthy and is a result of natural physical attraction. It's not this 'sexual objectification' thing they claim, which is just a way of trying to shame people for their thoughts.
The laundrette ad is 20 years old. If they'd run this ad 20 years ago it wouldn't have been so out of touch with its audience. Time's moved on.
Time has moved on, but I think the point still stands that we are used to, expectant of, and generally as a society okay with, having exceptionally attractive people feature in adverts.
Time has moved on, but I think the point still stands that we are used to, expectant of, and generally as a society okay with, having exceptionally attractive people feature in adverts.
We are. And we've grown more used to having perfectly ordinary people featuring in ads as well, such as in the Dove campaign and This Girl Can.
The Carry On films were great in their day but society's moved on. So have ad audiences.
I don't know specifically about the women who were protesting, but I have friends who have better figures than the woman in the advert (IMO) who took issue with the advert.
They hold a view / principle on what they consider to be appropriate and responsible advertising that is in no way linked to what they themselves look like.
I don't agree with all of their views on this advert, but I'm not going to start labeling them as insecure just because they're morally opposed to something.
I used to have a stunning figure, babies and age have relegated it to just 'good' now but I much prefer to see a gorgeous figure than a flabby one, seeing 'real' figures doesn't inspire me or make me feel better about myself. Seeing gorgeous ones makes me want to up my game.
I used to have a stunning figure, babies and age have relegated it to just 'good' now but I much prefer to see a gorgeous figure than a flabby one, seeing 'real' figures doesn't inspire me or make me feel better about myself. Seeing gorgeous ones makes me want to up my game.
I pretty much agree... The figure in the Protein World advert isn't what I would call stunning, but in general I prefer to see women that motivate me to work harder*.
*By work harder I mean in all areas not just the body.
Don't like/offended are the big fat crossover in a Venn diagram. The survey I quoted used the word 'offended' and the 18-24 age group responded that it was how they felt.
Even if you could say that they genuinely felt offended, it doesn't follow that the ad is actually offensive. And this because the arguments are all to do with what the individual themselves infers from it, rather than what the ad actually states.
Their personal feelings are not enough justification to have the ad deemed offensive. And it's also not a reason to have the ad removed/banned.
There's no evidence of insecurity - that word is being bandied about in this thread for no reason I can fathom.
There's plenty of evidence. It might not have been called that, but it's right there. All these claims of making women "feel bad" because they're resented with an image of a slim woman who looks good in a bathing costume are prime examples. The very fact that the argument is that the ad might make women feel bad about their figure, is surely a pretty damming sign that they really are insecure about their body image and as a person.
Even if you could say that they genuinely felt offended, it doesn't follow that the ad is actually offensive. And this because the arguments are all to do with what the individual themselves infers from it, rather than what the ad actually states.
Their personal feelings are not enough justification to have the ad deemed offensive. And it's also not a reason to have the ad removed/banned.
Their personal feelings after seeing the ad are what motivates them to engage with the brand or, alternatively, think that the people behind it are a bunch of tossers. If the majority of 18-24 year-old women surveyed on YouGov deemed it to be offensive, along with high figures in the other age groups of women, that should be more than enough for a sensible company to pull the ad concerned.
I'm all in favour of provocative advertising or brand experiences that make us think twice, but this was a lazy, old-fashioned, in-house concept.
There's plenty of evidence. It might not have been called that, but it's right there. All these claims of making women "feel bad" because they're resented with an image of a slim woman who looks good in a bathing costume are prime examples. The very fact that the argument is that the ad might make women feel bad about their figure, is surely a pretty damming sign that they really are insecure about their body image and as a person.
You can feel perfectly secure about any aspect of yourself and still dislike a random stranger telling you that it's not good enough. That's pretty offensive, right there.
People are getting far too wrapped up with the word 'insecurity' and determined to find it at every turn. I find this quite bizarre.
A lot of them are fat? Really? A a lot of the girls there from your link, as far as I can see are not overweight. You appear to have concluded non-toned stomach = fat. How odd. You appear to be implying that you must actually look exactly like the model in order to critique the advertisement, without being insecure - which again is pretty odd conclusion. Those photos don't really support your conclusion at all. This argument that projects 'insecurity' onto the women who protested I have to say, also appears to imply that an opinions from women on female representation in the media only valid, and indeed should only be heard if the woman herself looks like an 'ideal' of female beauty.
All I'm implying is that they are clearly annoyed by the advert because they do not have toned, attractive bodies like the model does. I'll ask again, why else would they object to it?
That in itself is part of a wider problem - that woman are valued for how they 'look' as opposed to what they actually do. You don't have to agree with feminist critiques of how women are portrayed in the media - but these constant accusations of insecurity, every time topics related to female representation comes up appears to actively seek to undermine and silence these women's voices. This doesn't seem right given that there is, arguably a valid discussion to be had over how women are represented in the media - when girls as young as seven are suffering body-image issues, when there are hardly any older women represented in our media, and when the amount of women and girls suffering from eating disorders is rising.
Oh for God's sake, it was an advert for a fitness product. Why on earth would they not want to use a fit, young and toned model like the one they chose?
Look at the company's website, they have semi-naked images of toned, muscular men as well as of women. But you're going to tell me that it's different for men, aren't you?
Comments
Of course. The link to the yougov poll would have been spammed all over these whingers facebook and twitter pages
Nice attempt to blame men there though, I forgot that the fashion industry is completely ran by men with no female input...
It is the typical feminist cult response, 'Its all Mens fault...'
Seems to me that in general, despite all the press coverage people, just didn't care about it that much.
Also once again shows how ridiculous online petitions are, many will click a button to agree with something but not care enough to actually take a few more seconds to lodge an official complaint.
The company cannot be blamed because self-conscious people get secure when faced with people who don't.
This product was not even targeted as the 'insecure because my body isn't like theirs' people, the people who aren't willing to do the necessary exercise and eat the correct diet to allow them to get a body similar.
It is aimed at the people that are willing to put the effort, will exercise and eat healthily in order to get the body they want.
Just because some people would rather be lazy and sit on their arse while complaining that people them aren't used to sell products, doesn't mean it should be stopped!
A company knows a lot more about their target audience than an ad agency, since they are the ones that actually deal with their customers.
A workplace is a different matter, these ads were placed in the public domain.
Really? So the advert of a healthy, young, attractive woman is not what kicked this off?
What did they complain about if it wasn't about having to see it?
No but complaining that a woman used in an advert is in a good physical condition, whilst expecting to be pandered to because you are not generally does indicate your insecure.
After all, if you are totally happy with your own body, what reason would you have to complain about a fit person being used in an advert?
Don't ever body shame an unfit person though, they will go off their tits.
There does seem to be a double standard on DS, it's certainly not the first time I've mentioned it.
The ad is now appearing in New York in the same form that it appeared in London, and it's still getting a reaction... http://www.today.com/style/protein-worlds-are-you-beach-body-ready-ads-spark-backlash-t29671
Were you asked to do the poll?
The target audience for products like that is largely the 18 - 24 year-old women who deemed it offensive.
It seems a bit desperate if you're trying to trash the evidence.
After all they aren't forced to be a model, they choose to.
You can blame men all you like, but whilst women continue to treat other women as mindless puppets who only do what men tell them to do nothing is going to change.
And this advert was not aimed at the sort of people that whinges that attractive people are used to sell products. The people whinging are not the target audience, they are not people who are willing to not only eat healthily and exercise in order to get the body they are happy with.
Unless it suits them. The Feminist cult often forgets that these women are people to, have chosen to become models and make a living out of it.
But of course it is seen as perfectly fine for the Feminist cult to ignore this, treat them as objects and then to complain about women being treated as objects...
You choose to do this! I could have chosen to become a ripped man with washboard abs and muscles. I haven't, I am quite happy with my beer gut and man boobs, and I don't devote my time bitching because my personal choice is pandered to in advertising campaign!
Exactly, advertising is designed to sell the product to the best effect. It is designed to make the product appealing so that the target audience buys it.
Having an unfit person advertising a fitness product wouldn't sell the product either.
I wouldn't trust any YouGov poll or other polling company. We only have to look at how badly they got the election results wrong to realise they can't be trusted. The only fact we really have is that 400 people complained about the advert. Now out of a population of around 65 million people, that's really not an awful lot of people at all. Its crazy that the ASA are acting on such a tiny number of complaints. Thankfully they aren't funded by the tax payer.
BIB, it's what they've been told by the advertising. This is how advertising works.
Sorry, can't make head nor tail of your second sentence.
What leads you to believe that healthy, fit people would opt for slimming pills? And if they were targeting these healthy, fit people, why not use fitness mags/websites or the usual channels instead of plastering an expensive campaign all over prime sites in London?
Your option is a bit like targeting liposuction at supermodels.
You've got no evidence of any of this. I'm spotting a pattern.
And THAT is the funniest thing I've read in years.
In the article you were referring to, no one made specific complaints about the model herself. Did you not read it?
That isn't what they were complaining about. By your logic, they are not insecure.
It's in the original complaint.
I would imagine that the women complaining about that particular poster don't have stunning figures....
Why would anyone take offence at an attractive woman with a good figure?
Loads of posters are complaining about women being seen as sex objects etc, but in all fairness, it really is a non argument, considering that men are used in adverts in just the same way. Well, it seems like that to me anyway!
Would the bloke who advertised those jeans in a launderette worked as well if he had had a flabby stomach and man boobs! I sincerely doubt that ;-)
I don't know specifically about the women who were protesting, but I have friends who have better figures than the woman in the advert (IMO) who took issue with the advert.
They hold a view / principle on what they consider to be appropriate and responsible advertising that is in no way linked to what they themselves look like.
I don't agree with all of their views on this advert, but I'm not going to start labeling them as insecure just because they're morally opposed to something.
The laundrette ad is 20 years old. If they'd run this ad 20 years ago it wouldn't have been so out of touch with its audience. Time's moved on.
These so called feminist campaigners choose to ignore it when it's the other way around as it doesn't fit their argument of blaming men for everything. Women lust over men for their looks just as much if not more than blokes do of women. Either way it's perfectly healthy and is a result of natural physical attraction. It's not this 'sexual objectification' thing they claim, which is just a way of trying to shame people for their thoughts.
Time has moved on, but I think the point still stands that we are used to, expectant of, and generally as a society okay with, having exceptionally attractive people feature in adverts.
We are. And we've grown more used to having perfectly ordinary people featuring in ads as well, such as in the Dove campaign and This Girl Can.
The Carry On films were great in their day but society's moved on. So have ad audiences.
I used to have a stunning figure, babies and age have relegated it to just 'good' now but I much prefer to see a gorgeous figure than a flabby one, seeing 'real' figures doesn't inspire me or make me feel better about myself. Seeing gorgeous ones makes me want to up my game.
I pretty much agree... The figure in the Protein World advert isn't what I would call stunning, but in general I prefer to see women that motivate me to work harder*.
*By work harder I mean in all areas not just the body.
Even if you could say that they genuinely felt offended, it doesn't follow that the ad is actually offensive. And this because the arguments are all to do with what the individual themselves infers from it, rather than what the ad actually states.
Their personal feelings are not enough justification to have the ad deemed offensive. And it's also not a reason to have the ad removed/banned.
There's plenty of evidence. It might not have been called that, but it's right there. All these claims of making women "feel bad" because they're resented with an image of a slim woman who looks good in a bathing costume are prime examples. The very fact that the argument is that the ad might make women feel bad about their figure, is surely a pretty damming sign that they really are insecure about their body image and as a person.
Their personal feelings after seeing the ad are what motivates them to engage with the brand or, alternatively, think that the people behind it are a bunch of tossers. If the majority of 18-24 year-old women surveyed on YouGov deemed it to be offensive, along with high figures in the other age groups of women, that should be more than enough for a sensible company to pull the ad concerned.
I'm all in favour of provocative advertising or brand experiences that make us think twice, but this was a lazy, old-fashioned, in-house concept.
You can feel perfectly secure about any aspect of yourself and still dislike a random stranger telling you that it's not good enough. That's pretty offensive, right there.
People are getting far too wrapped up with the word 'insecurity' and determined to find it at every turn. I find this quite bizarre.
All I'm implying is that they are clearly annoyed by the advert because they do not have toned, attractive bodies like the model does. I'll ask again, why else would they object to it?
Oh for God's sake, it was an advert for a fitness product. Why on earth would they not want to use a fit, young and toned model like the one they chose?
Look at the company's website, they have semi-naked images of toned, muscular men as well as of women. But you're going to tell me that it's different for men, aren't you?
http://www.proteinworld.com/