Ad-busting L'Oréal's Roller Foundation

Just some good ol' fashioned ad-busting

I used to do a lot of ad-busting when I was in university. I even taught ad-busting workshops to teens and university students. I haven't done any in a while and I kinda miss it, so I thought I'd post a few of my favourite busted ads and maybe it'll help inspire me to do more!

I love advertisements with strong, sassy, smart ladies

I just saw this ad for World of Warcraft on TV the other day and I absolutely loved it. First let me say that I do not play World of Warcraft (or any computer/video games, for that matter) but I have definitely noticed their catchy and creative advertisements (have you seen the one with Mr. T?).

Anyway, back to the reason why I like this commercial so much. First, Aubrey Plaza, who's awesomely hilarious in the TV show Parks and Recreation, is equally snarky and funny in this commercial. I love her sassy personality in this ad. She comes accross as a strong, smart woman who don't take no shit from nobody, and I love it.

There's nothing worse than whiny, weak women like Bella from the Twilight series. Kudos to the marketing team at World of Warcraft for portraying smart, powerful women in their advertising, and not trying to "cutesy" up the game or the commercials in order to appeal to women. 

American Apparel had their chance to be cool, and blew it

In August 2011, American Apparel (AA) launched a plus size model search called The Next BIG Thing. Women were asked to submit their photos and the public would vote for the new face of their plus size division.

It all sounded pretty cool to begin with. I was excited... AA is finally branching out to plus size women? Hooray! But then I read the call for models. As you might expect from AA, the call made use of predictable and somewhat demeaning language.

Calling curvy ladies everywhere! Our best-selling Disco Pant (and around 10 other sexy styles) are now available in size XL, for those of us who need a little extra wiggle room where it counts. We’re looking for fresh faces (and curvaceous bods) to fill these babies out. If you think you’ve got what it takes to be the next XLent model, send us photos of you and your junk to back it up.

A couple of problems with their call out:

1. Wait - they’re only making 10 styles in size XL? That’s not very many. Also, what exactly is “XL”? According to the AA size chart, XL is a size 12/14, also known as the AVERAGE size of American women.
2. Your language is ridiculous. Extra wiggle room? Curvaceous bods? Your junk? Why does everything related to plus size women need to come packaged in stupid language like “booty-licious”? 

Well, their call for models didn’t just seem awkward and offensive to me. It caught the attention of Nancy Upton, a size 12 gal from Dallas, Texas. She entered the contest as a protest, submitting pictures of herself in alluring poses while eating chicken, chocolate, pie and even bathing in a tub of ranch dressing. Her submission simply said, “I’m a size 12. I just can’t stop eating.”

The public loved Nancy. When the contest was over, she won the popular vote by far. But American Apparel didn’t like that the winner was mocking their contest. So AA’s Creative Director, Iris Alonzo, wrote a letter to Nancy which included the following ridiculous sentences:

It’s a shame that your project attempts to discredit the positive intentions of our challenge based on your personal distaste for our use of light-hearted language, and that “bootylicous” was too much for you to handle.  

Oh — and regarding winning the contest, while you were clearly the popular choice, we have decided to award the prizes to other contestants that we feel truly exemplify the idea of beauty inside and out, and whom we will be proud to have representing our company.

Hot damn! We love Nancy!

So Nancy was shot down by American Apparel. Big surprise. But then something interesting happened. Nancy posted the harsh letter from Iris onto her blog and it went viral. American Apparel was suddenly swimming in bad press and Iris had some serious back-pedaling to do to.

Iris apologized to Nancy and offered to fly her and a friend out to LA to tour the company headquarters and discuss how AA could better market to plus size women. Once again, I had a glimmer of hope that maybe AA could be kinda cool.

Nancy and her friend met with the creative team who organized The Next BIG Thing contest and had an interesting discussion about marketing to plus size women. American Apparel exec’s fed the girls cream puffs (the irony of which was not lost on Nancy), and Iris even took Nancy and her friend out drinking. Things were looking up. “I had a REALLY good feeling about where the company would go after my trip,” wrote Nancy on her blog.

Over the next few days, Nancy and Iris exchanged a few more emails, and then Iris fucked it all up again.

On October 4, Iris wrote:

Marsha and I were trying to remember what we even talked about, and amidst all of the late night fun and cream puffs (compounded by the fact that we couldn’t re-watch the video of the meeting), we can hardly remember what was said at all.

I think Nancy summarizes my feelings about that email pretty well. On her blog she wrote:

This company spent thousands of dollars flying Shannon and I to LA, to meet with their team and they can’t even remember what we discussed. Nor do they care to. They want me to write something happy go-lucky about how positive our meeting was for women everywhere, and then they want to sign off on it, you know, in case I forget anything.

As it stands today, this whole debacle is SO TOTALLY OVER to Nancy. She is done with AA, writing “[Those] three sentences of that email tell more truth about what went on in this bizarro adventure than anything I saw in that factory or those offices.”

So, American Apparel had numerous chances to do something cool here, and they blew it every time. They insulted plus size women in their call to models, they shunned the popular winner of their contest and then insulted her in an email, tried to make it up to her only to flub it all again.

American Apparel, you clearly need advice, so I’m going to offer you a suggestion: Don’t be afraid of change. Or fat girls.

AA: Don't fear fat girls with chicken!

Your stocks are in the crapper, your CEO is dealing with multiple sexual harassment lawsuits, nobody likes your ugly hipster clothes anymore, and everyone’s sick of your sexist advertisements. Clearly, your company is in need of a shake-up. SOMETHING needs to change and I’m not going to pretend I know what that is, but maybe this whole thing with Nancy could have been exactly the change you need.

When your company is already down pretty low, you have nothing to lose by trying something new. Who knows, maybe you could have captured the hearts of North American women sized 12 and up, opening your store to millions of new customers. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, and other stores like Forever 21 and Target have already realized that the “fattening of America is a big business opportunity.”

In light of this whole debacle with Nancy, I fear that American Apparel’s destiny is to fade away as soon as hipster style falls out of fashion. But I’m OK with that, because time and time again AA has proved themselves to be a company that only cares about making clothing for slim, young, beautiful hipster women. Good luck making a profit each year with such a tiny demographic.

Abercrombie sells push-up bikini tops for kids

Abercrombie Kids is selling push up triangle bikini tops. Let me reiterate that these are for kids. According to Sociological Images (where I first discovered this), Abercrombie Kids markets their products towards 7 - 14 year olds, and the average age of puberty is 12. Don't you think their target audience is a little young to be enhancing their cleavage?

I don't know why any of this shit from Abercrombie surprises me anymore. Here's just a sample of some other offensive and sexist clothing they've produced:

• In 2002 Abercrombie Kids had to remove a line of thong underwear sold for girls in pre-teen children's sizes after parents mounted nationwide storefront protests. The underwear included phrases like "Eye Candy" and "Wink Wink" printed on the front.


• In 2004 they got in trouble for a sexist and offensive tshirt that said "L is for Loser" next to a picture of a male gymnast on the rings.


• In 2005 they came out with tshirts displaying sexist messages such as "Available for parties," "Who needs brains when you have these?" and "I had a nightmare I was a brunette."


• A tshirt controversy arose again over A&F's Back-to-School 2009 collection of "humor tees." One shirt proclaims "Show the twins" above a picture of a young woman with her blouse open to two men. Two other shirts state "Female streaking encouraged" and "Female Students Wanted for Sexual Research."
  Source: Abercrombie & Fitch product criticism - Wikipedia
  
  

American Apparel increases sleaze, decreases sales

I've had a problem with American Apparel's advertising for a LONG time. I always hold out hope that it will get better, because American Apparel does some pretty cool things, like not photoshopping the models in their ads, supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage, and not using sweatshops to produce their clothing. That's all very nice... but I can never understand why AA is so ethical in those areas, yet they spew out such exploitative, porn-like advertisements that over-sexualize young women.



Look at the selection of their most recent ads below. You’ll see more tits, ass and pubes than the clothing they actually sell. So what are the ads actually selling? The women have become the products, not the clothing. AA caters to a hipster clientele, and they’re selling the idea that half-naked women in passive, child-like positions are hip. If you want to be hip and trendy, strip down and become a docile object to be stared at.













It’s also interesting to note the inclusion of pubic hair in a couple of these ads. This is something I haven’t seen before in AA’s advertising, and I’ve been following it for years. Maybe AA felt they’d fully exploited tits and ass to their maximum potential, so they had to up their game by adding pubes.



Another departure from their traditional sleaze is the hand-drawn images. The black and white ads for cotton panties are particularly disturbing because the girls look about 16. We already know that the company's CEO, Dov Charney, loves barely-legal ladies, and is currently dealing with a lawsuit filed by a former employee who says that when she was 18 he forced her into sex and essentially held her prisoner for hours after she visited his Manhattan apartment in 2008. The lawsuit is the latest in a string accusing Charney of inappropriate sexual conduct with female employees.



AA seems to be ever-striving to create the most controversial and sleazy ads possible. Whenever I get riled up about AA, I question whether or not I should even post their offensive ads. By posting them and paying attention to them, I am ultimately giving them more exposure and hype, which may be exactly what the company wants. However, I feel that I have to post them because a lot of anti-American Apparel sentiment is brewing and more people are boycotting them due to their advertising, so I definitely want to add fuel to that fire.



The good news is that American Apparel might not be around much longer, as they are on the verge of bankruptcy and have now been slammed with yet another sex scandal.

Most of these images were brought to my attention by Copyranter,

an excellent blog about advertising and marketing.

Adbusting at Market Collective

Last weekend, volunteers from Take Back the Night Calgary set up an ad-busting workshop at Market Collective. People were invited to flip through magazines and find advertisements, images and articles that they wanted to “bust.” Busted images were then plastered over the walls.



I organized this adbusting workshop, and I’ve been doing these for about 5 years now. I define adbusting as “Defacing images that are offensive because they portray unrealistic beauty standards, are sexist, classist, homophobic, racist, insulting or demeaning."

Here's what the adbusting workshop looked like:

The workshop drew large crowds and we received so much positive feedback. One woman came up to me and said, “Thank you so much. I really needed to see this.” I think that seeing busted ads helped to remind people that we shouldn’t passively accept images we see in media: we should be thinking about them, what they really mean, and what they’re really telling (and selling) us.



We received over 100 “busted ads” but I can’t post them all here, so below are some of my favourites.

Jennie's Picks: The Best Busted Ads from Market Collective

THIS is beautiful? But it's fake!

Who can compete with Photoshop?

I miss my Mommy

Did you see she has such pretty eyes?

There's more to life than being pretty

That's cool... I'll just wait over here

Women are food? Consume, dispose, repeat.

Remember what food tastes like?

British ad promotes marriage

This ad campaign was created "to make people reappraise marriage as the number of British people marrying drops to its lowest level since 1862."



Does anyone else think it's weird to advertise marriage?! It's not a product or service! (Although, the wedding industry is worth billions).



More info about the ad campaign at Copyranter.

Reebok's Ass-vertising Campaign

Reebok claims you can work out your legs and butt muscles just by wearing their EasyTone shoes. Everyone’s looking for an easy way to a bikini body – whether that be through “skinny pills” or shoes that tone your butt and legs. There’s so much damn pressure to look good (i.e. skinny) and marketers know that people will buy almost anything if there’s a glimmer of hope that it will work. Despite the lack of proof that these shoes actually work, people are buying them up. Officials from Reebok say the EasyTone is the company’s most successful new product in at least five years.



So, how are these shoes supposed to work? While most athletic shoes offer support and cushioning, these “muscle-activating” shoes are engineered to create instability. “Balance pods” inside Reebok EasyTone’s are said to force the wearer to engage stabilizing muscles further, resulting in more toned leg and buttock muscles.



An article from the New York times basically states that Reebok’s claims are bullshit. “To support the claims, the shoemakers each offer company-financed exercise studies suggesting that the shoes produce a higher level of muscle engagement, at least in a controlled research setting. But the studies don’t show whether more engagement leads to meaningful changes in muscle tone or appearance over time. Nor is it clear whether the high level of engagement continues once the walker becomes accustomed to the shoe.”



I think what disturbs me the most about these EasyTone shoes is their advertising campaign. Erm, make that assvertising campaign, cos asses are about the only thing you see. I’ve included two of their print ads, and you can also watch their obnoxious television ads on YouTube, but I warn you that watching these ads may lead to lower self esteem and feelings that your body isn't good enough. (Thanks, Reebok!)



The print ads are frustrating because they’re so obviously fake. The legs have been Photoshopped to such an extreme degree that they look like plastic Barbie legs. Real people’s legs don’t look like plastic, they have veins and different colours/tones on the skin. Caucasian skin is not a peachy-plastic colour: it has tones of red, purple, green, and blue within it. The only conclusion I can come to is that these legs must belong to some new race of humans with impossibly flawless skin!



Also what’s up with the see-through panties? It’s bad enough that they throw these fake skinny legs in our face, and now we have to look at ass-cracks too? It’s just a bunch of anonymous Barbie legs and asses being thrown into our faces, and we’re meant to believe that we can actually achieve this look? Let me save you the $150 on the shoes and some of your dignity by telling you now that even the fittest most athletic women in the world don’t have legs and asses that look like this because these are computer-generated bodies. Refuse to compare yourself to a Photoshopped body. Refuse to believe their bullshit lies that you too can look like this - all it takes is walking in these shoes!



No, Reebok. All it takes is a greedy advertiser and a soulless Photoshop editor who’s willing to air brush all the veins, colour, personality and individuality out of your legs until they look like two sticks of peach-coloured plastic.



So Reebok, I have a request for you. If you shoes ACTUALLY work, then have the balls/eggs to show us REAL women’s legs after they’ve walked around in these shoes. Until then, I’ll continue to believe that the only woman capable of legs like that is a computer-generated woman.

It's 2010 and advertisers are STILL using gang rape to sell clothing?

When will designer brands learn that it’s not cool to use gang rape to advertise clothing?

In 2007 Dolce & Gabanna put out this charming ad, which was banned in Italy, Australia and Spain, and caused controversy world-wide.



Now, Calvin Klein has basically done exactly the same thing. This new ad, starring Dutch model Lara Stone, has also been banned in Australia for being “suggestive of violence and rape.” Australia's ad watchdog said the image "was demeaning to women by suggesting that she is a plaything of these men. It also demeans men by implying sexualized violence against women."

I believe these companies know that what they're doing will spark controversy, and they're using the old "any press is good press" motto. So on the one hand I'm reluctant to even mention this because maybe that's exactly what they want... but on the other hand, it's really important that people understand WHY these images are unacceptable: Studies have shown that increased exposure to images of violence against women "normalizes it" and makes it less shocking and seemingly less wrong. If people start to think of rape and sexual assault as something normal, they will have less sympathy for victims, and more offenders will get away with their crimes.

GQ's November issue turns Glee into porn

Is this Glee photo shoot too sexually explicit for the audience it courts? I think so. Glee is a hugely successful television program that's popular with tweens and teens. It's also wildly popular amongst adults too, but the producers of Glee have to remember that if youth are a big part of their audience, the actors shouln't be posing like porn stars.

The racy photo shoot features Dianna Agron (Quinn), Lea Michele (Rachel) and Cory Monteith (Finn). The Los Angeles Times has a really good article about this, and these two paragragraphs were stand-outs for me:

Monteith is, of course, fully clothed. Not so his female costars, who bare their midriffs and décolletage, bras and panties, in thighs-spread, derriere-hoisted poses made more than slightly unsettling by their school-girl ensembles. Michele, in particular, seems to be auditioning for a live-action version of Japanese anime porn.

The result is not so much saucy and in-your-face as it is predictable and depressing -- oh look, more young women being asked to assume the position, this time complete with pom poms and lollipop. No doubt Agron and Michele did it to be sexy and playful, and were not at all manipulated by forces that have put generations of young women in precisely the same poses for precisely the same reasons -- to feed the fantasy, promote the show and sell magazines. And that just makes it worse, doesn't it?

First, it upsets me that young girls look up to these actresses and here they are posing like porn stars... great. Second, I'm so fucking sick of the same old "sexy" poses: girl licking lollipop seductively, guy with two girls, girls sticking their butts and breasts out, etc. I mean really. Get some god damn originality. Third and finally, I know that all the people in this photo shoot are adults, but they play teenagers on a television show. GQ is a magazine for men, and considering that these photos are set in a school, the photographer has essentially served up over-sexualized images of school girls to grown men.

Any other Glee fans out there? What do you think of these pictures? Today, I am sad to report that I've lots a little bit of respect for Glee.

The Threesome. Super creative and original!

The crotch shot. Another classic.

Oh, the lollipop in the mouth! Another CLASSIC!
And by classic I mean completely unoriginal.

What happened to Christina Hendrick's hips?

Christina Hendrick from Mad Men is a beautiful, curvy lady. But in this new ad for London Fog, they seem to have Photoshopped her hips right out of the picture. Below is a picture of what her hips actually look like.



Why would London Fog Photoshop her hips down so drastically? Christina's curvy body is part of what's made her loved by so many people and a role model for curvier women. Shame on you London Fog for fucking up what could have been a really beautiful advertisement.

Jacob no longer photo retouching

Canadian retailer Jacob just announced they will no longer retouch photos to alter the body shapes of their models. Their new policy begins as they launch their fall campaign for both Jacob and Jacob Lingerie brands.



Jacob is claiming to be the first Canadian company to do this. I can't say for sure if that claim is true, but I've never heard of another Canadian company doing this... although we've reported in the past that some European magazines (in Germany and France) have already taken this step.



"Jacob has always made an effort to promote a healthy image of the female body" says spokesperson and Communications Director Cristelle Basmaji. "By adopting an official policy and broadcasting it publicly, we hope to reverse the trend in digital photo manipulation that has become excessive in our industry. Our decision to never reshape the bodies of our models is particularly innovative for our Jacob Lingerie campaigns. The basis of the new "no retouching" policy is to promote an honest and realistic image of the female body."



Although this is an awesome move by Jacob and a huge step in the right direction, it's important to note that Jacob is not completely ditching Photoshop. They will still use it for things like smoothing out skin tone and removing scars or tattoos. Hortense from Jezebel writes, "While it would be nice to have a company embrace tattoos, uneven skin tone, and scars (you know, "imperfections," aka "shit everyone has in real life but are made to feel insecure about because said things are airbrushed away in mass marketed images of beauty"), but it's hard to fault the company's transparency..."



Jacob will be releasing three versions of some of their Fall campaign photos: the raw image, the photo as seen in their advertising campaign and one that has been retouched as would have been done in the past. It will be interesting to see how the three photos differ - I'll try and post them on the blog when they come out!



For more information: CBC.ca, JACOB

New Diesel ad looks an awful lot like American Apparel

Is this supposed to be, "if I wear hot jeans to the office my boss will sleep with me?" And what's up with the fact that their tag line is now "Be Stupid?" (bottom right). WTF.

Top 7 reasons why American Apparel sucks

1. Internal documents reveal that ugly people shouldn’t bother applying at AA.

2. The company's Guide to Grooming describes in detail how staff should look. No bangs! No gauge earrings! No liquid foundation! No goatees or mustaches! No Uggs, flip flogs, gladiator sandals, vans, converse or winter boots! (Oh, no, we’re not a dictatorship. Whatever would make you think that?)

3. AA won’t make some of their women’s clothing above a size 6.

4. They doesn’t want any of those “trashy Black girls” to work there. Only the ones with the nice hair.

5. Current employees must submit photos to be promoted or receive a raise. Cos, you know, we don't want any uglies being promoted.

6. AA has a Best Bottom Contest to find the sexiest ass. Well, I don’t know about the sexiest ass, but I know who the biggest ass is… Don Charney (CEO of American Apparel).

7. They pretend that they're really progressive cos they don't photoshop their ads and they use "real women" to model their clothes. I guess "real women" only come in a size 4 or smaller and look about 16. And guess what? Sleazy porno-style ads aren't progressive and edgy. It's the same old shit that Calvin Klein has been doing since the 80's. Just admit that your ads are as sleazy as every other shitty clothing company and stop trying to pretend that you're so original and cutting edge.

Well, there is a light at the end of the tunnel... apparently AA is in pretty serious financial trouble.

If this isn't skinny, I don't know what is

The feminist blog-o-sphere is up in arms about the new cover of Shape magazine. This month's cover girl is Kim Kardashian - looking smokin' hot (although probably highly photoshopped) in her purple bikini. So what's the problem? Well, read the words printed next to her left bicep: "I'll never be one of those skinny girls."



Hortense, a writer at Jezebel comments, "As if we're supposed to find this admission believable and heroic as it sits next to an airbrushed picture of, uh, a 'skinny girl' who is currently a spokeswoman for the Kardashian QuickTrim diet pill system, a program she claims, in commercials for the brand, will help you create the body you deserve... In celebrating and promoting Kardashian's statement that she'll "never be one of those skinny girls," even though she very clearly already is, the magazine is essentially telling its audience that Kardashian doesn't represent thinness, which is ridiculous."



Sociological Images also has some great comments about this magazine cover - be sure to check it out.

You want me to stick that where?

This vintage ad from 1902 reads:

Every woman is interested and should know about the wonderful MARVEL Whirling Spray! The new vaginal syringe. Injection and suction. Best - safest - most convenient. It cleanses instantly.



Ask your druggist for it. If he cannot supply the MARVEL, accept no other, but send stamp for illustrated book __?__. It gives full particulars and directions invaluable to ladies.

Um, OK, so where to begin...

1. Injection and suction? What the fuck? Is this secretly a home abortion kit made to look like a douche?

2. "Ask your druggist for it. If HE cannot supply..." Naturally, the druggist is a man.

3. The illustrated book is "invaluable to ladies" eh? Hmm, I want to see these illustrations!

4. Whirling spray in MY vagina? Oh, Hell no!



Thanks to Vintage Ads for posting this little beauty!

Because only Mom's cook dinner...

Thanks to the awesome blog Sociological Images for initially posting this sexist ad.

Evian Takes our Obsession with Youth to the Next Level

Have you seen this commercial for Evian featuring the 'roller babies'?







Not only do I find the manipulated images of babies insanely creepy, this commercial also exemplifies our society's obsession with youth. Evian's new tag line is "Live Young," and the commercial claims that Evian "supports your body's youth." There's a bullshit marketing line if I ever heard one!



Anyhow, I suppose this post isn't particularly feminist... but I just felt the need to rant. This commercial seems fairly innocent and fun if you don't scrape past the surface, but I think Evian has really taken our obsession with youth to a new level here. Yes, I know it's just supposed to be silly and funny... but the message behind this is that drinking bottled water (which is an environmental atrocity) keeps us young. And in a society like ours that worships youth, a lot of people will believe anything advertisers say in their efforts to keep looking young.

Old Spice's Steamy Super Bowl Ad: WTF?

So, I guess I'm kinda late on posting this video, but this is Old Spice's Super Bowl advertisement. Ladies, what do we think?