Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Deciding Not to Photoshop

11/7/2015

3 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Most people want to look their best.  Yes, at times we don’t care as much about our appearance, but usually we want to look more attractive, not less; so, we wash our faces, comb our hair, put on clean clothes, etc.
 
In the digital age people are often seen more in pictures than in person, which creates unique opportunities to enhance attractiveness.  Even those with little digital experience can use photo-editing software for simple touch-ups, like erasing skin blemishes, and those with advanced graphic skills can transform personal appearance better than a plastic surgeon.
 
This ability to digitally alter can be especially enticing to marketers whose success depends on the attractiveness of the people promoting their products.  Most of us would be amazed to learn how many advertising images we see daily, including those of people, that have been digitally enhanced.  While most of that retouching is imperceptible to all but those who do it, sometimes the alterations are not only obvious but obnoxious.
 
For instance, the actress, singer, and dancer Zendaya recently criticized the digital fashion magazine Modeliste for slimming her legs and torso in images the publication used.  Similarly, some perceptive people noticed that an advertisement for Huggies’ Little Movers Slip-On Diapers contained a picture of a toddler whose legs appeared to have been airbrushed in order to create a thigh gap!
 
Such digital manipulation is disturbing to many, particularly to those who lament the unrealistic standards that our society often places on people to look a certain way.  It can be refreshing, therefore, to hear of opposite occurrences, i.e., instances in which the temptation to photo-retouch is rebuffed:  case in point, Kate Winslet.
 
Winslet is the English actress who gained international fame for her starring role in the 1997 epic film Titanic.  She’s also received accolades for a variety of other dramatic and comedic work, which resulted in Academy and Emmy Awards.  Like many other celebrities, Winslet also earns income as a commercial spokesperson.  More specifically, she’s become the face of Lancôme, the French luxury perfume and cosmetics maker.
 
The market for cosmetics is a large and competitive one, with major global players like L'Oréal (Lancôme’s parent), Procter & Gamble, and Unilever posturing for a bigger piece of world-wide revenues estimated at over $260 billion and growing.  Of course, in an industry based on beauty, looks really matter, hence the desire to gain endorsements from some of the world’s most recognizable and attractive faces, like Winslet's.
 
Some firms, however, have felt that extraordinary natural beauty and carefully applied cosmetics aren’t enough for their ads, so they’ve digitally enhanced their endorsers, sometimes to the chagrin of their customers and others.  One such controversial case involved actress Julia Roberts, whose naturally pretty face was graphically enhanced in an ad for, of all things, Lancôme cosmetics.
 
It’s especially interesting, therefore, that Winslet has declined digital alteration of her own Lancôme ads.  In fact, no photo-retouching is reportedly a clause in her contract with the cosmetics company.  Why does Winslet take this surprising stance?  She feels an obligation to the generation of younger women to be a transparent and truthful role model:  “We're all responsible for raising strong young women, so these are things that are important to me.”
 
Winslet’s principled approach is likely a function of her own unfortunate experience: As a young girl she was teased about being overweight.  As a result, she realizes how important it is for others to be accepted for how they look.  Of course, some may argue that make-up is itself a way of artificially altering appearance.  There seems to be a difference, however, between using cosmetics to accentuate ones natural features and using digital technology to significantly alter them.
 
Winslet’s rejection of photo-retouching seems to support societal values such as honesty in communication and respect of personal differences, but is her choice effective marketing?  Since 2011, revenues at L'Oréal (Lancôme’s parent) have risen by 10.7%, while gross profit has experienced a very similar increase—10.6%.  Of course, Winslet’s impact on these numbers may be minimal; still, the corporation’s success is one positive sign.
 
Meanwhile, revenues for Mattel’s iconic and unrealistically beautiful Barbie doll have declined: “sales dropped 16% in 2014, marking Barbie’s third consecutive year of falling earnings”—results that some attribute to society’s appetite for more authentic and real role models.
 
In short, Winslet’s approach to marketing make-up seems to be both effective and ethical, making it a cosmetics case of “Mindful Marketing.”
​
Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
3 Comments
Irebe Umusangwa
12/9/2015 11:29:20 pm

In our society, we see that there's growth of Natural beauty happening to the Millennials. I think that more people are accepting different looks and are accepting and loving beauty in everyone, no matter the size, the skin color and many more characteristics we are. I also agree with the fact that Kate Winslet's denial to be photoshopped is very Mindful, because she wants to show future generations that they are beautiful naturally and that they should not worry about feeling bad about themselves. By refusing photoshop, and still participating in Lancôme's advertisements will creat more stakeholder value for Lancôme and uphold societal values because there will be a realistic look for the products.

Reply
Thien Nguyen
12/10/2015 11:46:07 am

In the today world, I think it is very hard for advertiser to create any ads without the help of photo-retouching software. This is due to the fact that every other advertising firms are also retouching their ads, especially in the beauty field. As one firm decided not to retouch their photos anymore, their ads will very likely be compared to the others. Moreover, as many people don't have much time in this busy decade to figure out the real reason behind it, the no-photoshoped-ad firm's products would likely be struggled. In fact, these kind of "good-looking" standard has gotten deep into today world's value, and it is even slowly increase with the boom of retouching software and the competition of advertising firm. It might take a lot of effort in order to restore the society standard of beauty back to the reality. Still, many people would experience a big shock if one day all of the models on the ads on their TVs or favorite magazines suddenly got "uglier".

Reply
Darrin link
12/17/2015 07:16:16 pm

Photoshop is a good tool to brush up the models face blemished such as zits and things of that nature. However in are society these companies would use photoshop by completely changing the appearance of someone to make them look for more attractive. It can be argued that this is not a problem but it is important for people to understand that these models are "touched up" and don't really look that good. If people do not understand this the the thought of not looking food enough can be born.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly