The Ugly Truth Behind The Beauty Industry






Advertising always made me feel like if I just bought

the certain product or outfit, I would be fixed


for most of my life, it helped to form a very negative relationship with my body

when I feel that I’m not attractive from others
because they’ve internalized Eurocentric beauty standards,
then I feel negatively towards myself

I don't see myself represented in marketing
and this sends the message that my body is not marketable or worthy

As a trans person, advertising has often made me feel pressured
to conform to cis standards of looking

I wish ads about beauty didn't frame everything as my responsibility.
I didn't do something wrong when I get a pimple,
I shouldn't feel like I need to fix it

The quotes above are from real people who have felt the marketing industry's detrimental effects on their mental health, body image, and self-worth. This damage is increasingly prevelent and incredibly harmful. In order to fully understand how people have been impacted by negative media exposure, we must analyze the ways that media affects the us on a psychological level. Research on the psychosocial effects of marketing has been increasingly prevalent in the past few decades. Scholars have observed that advertising “does not claim to picture reality as it is, but reality as it should be” (Schudson, 1984, as cited in Richins, 1991, p. 71). This is an effective strategy because the line between reality and brand-generated utopia slowly becomes so faint that consumers can no longer recognize what is genuine. If the target audience believes what they are perceiving is real and within reach, this sets unattainable expectations for reality which can contribute to harmful levels of sadness, anxiety, and neuroticism (Richins, 1991, p. 71).


Evidence of the damage caused by unrealistic beauty standards is documented in two studies from the 1980s. Kenrick and Gutierres (1980) asked two groups of men to rate the attractiveness of an average looking woman — one group after watching a normal television program and one group after watching footage from Charlie’s Angels. They found that the “Charlie’s Angels” men viewed the average woman as less attractive, likely because their standards were now set much higher (Richins, 1991, p. 73). Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989) came to similar conclusions after conducting an experiment that primed groups of men and women by showing them either Playboy & Penthouse nudes or images of abstract art. The group that viewed the nudes went on to rate nudes of average women as less attractive than the group that had viewed abstract art (Richins, 1991, p. 73).


The constant depiction of women as idealized sex objects has warped the expectations of consumers. By creating "a possibility, a hope and a dream, women are made to hear and then see pictures of other attractive women achieving these goals through using or having these products" (Rajagopal & Gales, p. 3334). When other women are somehow acheiving these goals, consumers feel disappointed, shameful, and inferior because they cannot. These skewed expectations could be avoided if consumers excluded professional models from their expectations of attractiveness, but this is not easy to do. Models with access to elite levels of wealth and resources are able to cultivate a look that surpasses the beauty standard, but then insert themselves among their target audiences as if they are normal. There is no way to differentiate from what is genuine and what is manufactured.

Click here to read an interview with a former Victoria's Secret Digital Retoucher —
learn what really goes on behind the scenes of beach photoshoots like these 

As much as we acknowledge the damage that is caused by the media, we are still not immune to its effects. This quote from a young model encapsulates the vicious cycle of the modeling and marketing industry: "Deep down inside, I still want to be a supermodel... As long as they're there, screaming at me from the television, glaring at me from magazines, I'm stuck in the model trap. Hate them first. Then grow to like them. Love them. Emulate them. Die to be them. All the while praying this cycle will come to an end." (Lee 1993, as cited in Martin & Gentry, 1997, p. 19)

This cycle probably sounds familiar to many of us. It is nearly impossible to avoid the airbrushed bodies and faces that cover every magazine page, Instagram story, and television ad. Through this onslaught of input, we have become programmed to compare ourselves to the media that we constantly intake. As Jean Kilbourne observed, "ads sell more than products. They sell values, they sell images, they sell concepts of love and sexuality, of success, and perhaps most important, of normalcy." Comparison is a natural human instinct — people feel a drive to evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing with others (Festinger, 1954, as cited in Martin & Gentry, 1997, p. 20). However, we should never be evaluating our merit based on something as shallow and socially constructed as beauty. Christopher Lasch observed that these increasing rates of dissatisfaction are actually linked to a change in the values of our society: “the mass promotion of commodities... has a regressive effect on the individual who becomes ever more dependent on external judgements of what is necessary for [their] well-being and produces an inner state of chronic anxiety (1984, as cited in Cussins, 2001, p. 106). As our society becomes increasingly materialistic, we rely more and more on products — not people — to define our worth.

So how did we get here?

At this point, it is clear that the visual and verbal messages of ad campaigns are causing measurable damage to consumers. It is crucial that we find a way to solve this issue, but how? The marketing industry, like every other sector of the economy, is fueled by capitalism. This is precisely why it is so difficult to facilitate change — because capitalism is engrained in every single aspect of our culture. Let’s break this down:

Karl Marx proposed the theory that our society is made up of two parts: a base and a superstructure. In his model, the base is the economy and the superstructure is everything that develops because of it — culture, social norms, and institutions. He argued that the various aspects of the superstructure function to benefit the “ruling class,” and to continuously reinforce the base (Cole, 2020). This explains why it is so difficult to transition to a different economic system. This same theory can also be used to demonstrate how the patriarchy is perpetuated, as well as why marketing & media are so misogynistic. In this model, the base is the patriarchy: it is made up of wealthy male CEOs who oversee the production of content that is consumed by the general public. The superstructure that emerges from this base consists of cultural norms, trends, and marketing strategies that harm and oppress women. Marketing companies have the power to influence people's perceptions of self through the use of images that are digitally edited to "represent the advertiser's perspective of what is seen as perfect by viewers. The key word is 'advertiser's perspective' because often the person who has created what she or he deems as the ideal image has also created the model" (Rajagopal & Gales, 3333). Advertisers use their position of power to shape the narrative of how women should look and act, targeting consumers' insecurities to generate a profit and hinder women from ever dismantling male hegemony — and so the cycle continues.


This connection between economy and beauty standards has persisted throughout history. Kathy Peiss writes, "beauty and business seem most closely related in the modern era, but beauty has always been for sale" (p. 489). Members of the ruling class have always used their affluence to aquire goods that demonstrate wealth. From intricate paintings to waterfront property, beauty has always been a defining feature of luxury goods. In a patriarchal culture, this meant that beautiful women also gained value — as slaves, prostitutes, or wives. "If beauty ideals and practices were shaped by earlier exchange values, they in turn set limits and created opportunities for the modern fashion and beauty industries" (Peiss, 489). Although the United States has outlawed slavery and prostitution, women are still objectified and demoralized because of their sex.

Feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey coined the term “male gaze” to decribe the way that women are depicted in commercials, films, music videos, and more. She notes that women exist in media to be observed from the viewpoint of a heterosexual male — even if not everyone in the viewing audience identifies as such (Sampson). Because of this, we are all forced to consume media through this warped lens. Women come to internalize the male gaze and learn to behave in ways that are most desirable for men, because we are taught that this is the only way to succeed. However, adhering to traditional standards of beauty and femininity does not spare a woman from scrutiny. In fact, it frequently results in additional harassment and discrimination. We saw this constantly during the 2008 and 2016 elections, when Hillary Clinton was judged constantly for her pantsuits that symbolized "masculine power" (Frechette, 2017). In this lose-lose situation, women struggle to beat the system because the system was built to work against them.

If you want an example of a brand that caters to the male gaze, just look at the infamous Victoria's Secret. Its models are the epitome of the beauty standard, and the annual VS fashion show was drawing over 10 million viewers in its peak year (Clary). When asked to address complaints about the lack of diversity and representation in Victoria's Secret fashion shows, chief marketing officer Ed Razek's reply clearly demonstrated his ignorance and privilege. "'Shouldn’t you have transsexuals in the show?' No. No, I don’t think we should... Because the show is a fantasy" (Munzenrieder). Razek added that the brand "attempted to do a television special for plus sizes [in 2000]. No one had any interest in it. Still don’t.” One entitled man with the authority to dictate a performance that attracts millions of viewers and shapes the expectations of how women should look to be runway-worthy? Not acceptable.

Now that we have identified brands and media outlets as cultural producers, it is easy to understand why sexist rhetoric continues to plague our society — because media is everywhere. The average consumer views over 3,000 ads every single day (Kilbourne, 2010). Many of us may think we are immune to the harm of advertising because the ads are so quick and skippable that they must not have an impact, right? Wrong. "Advertisers want us to believe that we’re not influenced, because that makes it all the easier for them to manipulate us," Jean Kilbourne argues. "Advertising’s influence is quick, it’s cumulative, and for the most part, it’s subconscious... Only 8% of an ad’s message is received by the conscious mind. The rest is worked and reworked deep within the recesses of the brain" (Kilbourne).


While this project focuses mainly on how gender and media marketing are linked, I feel it necessary to acknowledge the ways that media also connects to race. Throughout the history of the United States, beauty standards have been used as a tool to reinforce the sociopolitical views of the hegemony. This meant that in the early 20th century, fair skin and a dainty frame were considered ideal because these traits were correlated with wealth, while dark skin and a muscular build were typical of Black slaves. Nowadays, the majority of marketing campaigns still lack diversity. Advertisements usually neglect people of color because they do not fit the brand's whitewashed standards of beauty.

In 2017, YSL's new foundation line was criticized for its limited shade range
that catered primarily to light-skinned customers

Rihanna's company Fenty Beauty has made a deliberate effort to create
an inclusive range of foundation shades, specifically focusing on people of color

Ironically, White women spend a significant amount of time and money tanning their skin with creams, oils, and UV rays to appear darker. We are seeing record numbers of plastic surgery to augment lips, breasts, and butts; social media influencers and celebrities are often so artificially tanned and surgically modified that it’s impossible to remember what they originally looked like. The current standard of beauty in our culture is essentially POC features on a white body. Racial ambiguity has become desirable, which is unfair and aggrevating for women of color who are judged and harassed for their natural features — the same features that white girls are praised for artificially attaining. This double standard makes it impossible for non-White women to achieve the standards of beauty upheld by US culture. Activist Jean Kilbourne notes that women of color are "generally considered beautiful only if they approximate the White ideal." The impact of racism coupled with misogyny makes the experiences of women of color doubly difficult.

So how do we fix it?

I want to see every type of person represented in an honest and real way. People of all genders, races, and sizes need to be involved in advertisement

Create a layer of authenticity that embraces consumers and users rather than blanketing them with insecurity

I really like businesses that present customers with the facts and letting customers decide if that company or product is right for them, I wish that was more of the norm

I want to see a wider range of body types, especially in health care advertisements. It is important to break the correlation between healthy and skinny

I want to see real people using real, helpful products that curate a better mindset and body condition

The world population is so much more interesting than what the general media shows. To highlight these variations and celebrate them not only boosts morale, but also highlights that so many individuals could benefit from a product/service —not just the perfect one

The quotes above are just a few ideas from people who feel passionately about making real change to the marketing industry. Although many of us are still fighting for these changes, you may have observed that the overall feminist movement has become stagnant in recent years. This is due to a phenomenon that author & cultural critic Susan J. Douglas has coined “enlightened sexism”. She uses this phrase to describe the subtly misogynistic oppression she has observed in American society, which encourages the illusion of freedom for women — as long as they remain subservient to men. Douglas writes that over the past few decades, the media has given women “fantasies of power” to assure them that they are strong, capable, and on par with men. However, these fantasies also constantly reiterate that “purchasing power and sexual power are much more gratifying than political or economic power” (Douglas). Through the use of this rhetoric, the media has established that looking a certain way and dressing a certain way are the keys to female success. This is far from the truth, and it is just a clever way for companies to market to the same target audience that they have harmed. It is also an attempt by men to prevent women from dismantling the system that oppresses them. In the words of Douglas, “enlightened sexism is meant to make patriarchy pleasurable for women."

This problem has gone on for long enough. Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm once said, “The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, ‘It’s a girl’” (Obama, 2016). The pressure and judgement only gets worse as girls enter adolescence and are bombarded with toxic input from magazines, TV ads, and social media. In an interview with Weave News, Dr. Julie Frechette critiques these media outlets, saying that if we depicted women in more positive ways — choosing their own destinies, not needing to be rescued, with no negative comments about their bodies — they would feel less pressure to be perfect. It also doesn’t help that 97% of media outlets are male-dominated and 64% of journalists are men (Bedford et. al., ) When both the owners and producers of media content have a patriarchal bias, the news we see and hear is likely to be skewed. The best way to counteract this bias is to increase the proportion of women involved in media production. If more women have a say in the portrayal of their gender, we can decrease the amount of content that is produced to appeal to the male gaze.

In 2013, only 16% of top film directors, writers, producers, and cinematographers were women (Keegan). Even the most successful women in their field struggle to receive equal credibility and exposure as their male counterparts. Grammy-winning composer Nan Schwartz expressed frustration that “the general climate hasn't changed for women composers in film for years... The image of a composer is a guy,” she says. “I’ve conducted hundred-piece orchestras many times in my career. But the people who are hiring can’t imagine I have the competence to do that.” (Keegan).

Picture a composer — did you visualize this?

As it stands, White men control the majority of media outlets; this means that they get to dictate what content is produced. According to data gathered in 2010, nearly 75% of all people mentioned in media were men (Butler). In a world where the gender distribution is approximately 50-50, that percentage should not be acceptable. It is crucial for women and people of color to fight for their rightful spots at the top of the marketing ladder. Once this happens, maybe productive changes can start to take place.

Some brands have already taken steps in the right direction to help reduce the potential harm caused by their media campaigns. Brigitte, Germany’s most popular women’s magazine, declared that it was going to stop using professional models and would only use "real life" women instead (Kilbourne). In 2012, Seventeen magazine announced that it would no longer be editing the faces or figures of its models in an effort to celebrate “every kind of beauty” (Haughney). This change came about in response to an online petition started by young ballet dancer Julia Bluhm, who at just fourteen years old was constantly hearing comments from fellow dancers about how they felt fat. The petition was a huge success, and there was a push to make similar changes happen at Teen Vogue (Haughney).

A group of models from Victoria's Secret (left) and Parade (right). Two underwear brands with very different brand images, values, and marketing strategies — how do they make you feel?

New brands have also emerged with mission statements that work to counteract the damage done by past campaigns. Parade is a brand founded by a first-generation Latina woman that hopes to "rewrite the American underwear story" by designing bold, colorful undergarments in a wide range of inclusive sizes — XS to 3XL! (Smith). What really sets Parade apart from its competitors is its strategy of using models that look like consumers. We are seeing a paradigm shift in what consumers want out of brands, going from "I want to buy this because I'll look like them" to "I want to buy this because they look like me". This small change, if it can continue, will have a huge impact. Jean Kilbourne says, "it’s important to applaud the positive images, and to protest the damaging ones. But most important is to get involved in whatever way moves us, to change not just these ads, but these attitudes that run so deep in our culture, and that effect each one of us so deeply – whether we’re conscious of it or not." Improving the gender ratio in workplaces, newsrooms, and movie sets will help move the needle towards a culture free from misogyny because it will finally give women a voice and an opportunity to shape media. If we can alter the sexist superstructure of society, we have a greater chance at influencing the base.

* I would like to acknowledge everyone who shared their stories with me for this project. Although it is an uphill battle, we are constantly taking steps to enact big changes within the marketing & media industries. You are part of that change. Thank you.

Sources:

Bedford, C, et. al. (2015, May 6). Male Gaze and Its Impact on Gender Portrayals in Media. Media Freedom Foundation. https://www.projectcensored.org/male-gaze-and-its-impact-on-gender portrayals-in-media/


Butler, S. B. (2013). Changing the Portrayal of Women in the Media. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/women-in-media_b_2632621


Clary, T. (2019, November 22). Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show that has Run Since 2001 is Cancelled This Year. NBCUniversal. https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/victoria-s-secret-fashion-show-has-run-2001-canceled-year-n1089696


Cole, N. L. (2020). Definition of Base and Superstructure. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-base-and-superstructure-3026372


Cussins, A. M. (2001). The Role of Body Image in Women’s Mental Health. Feminist Review, 68, 105–114. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1395747


Douglas, S. J. The Rise of Enlightened Sexism. (n.d.). On The Issues Magazine. Retrieved October 15, 2021 from https://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2011winter/2011_winter_Douglas.php


Frechette, J. (2017, May 9). Tip of the Day: The Unfair and Imbalanced Culture of Sexual Harassment at Fox News. Media Freedom Foundation. https://www.projectcensored.org/tip-day-unfair-imbalanced-culture-sexual-harassment-fox-news/


Haughney, C. (2012, July 3). Seventeen Magazine Vows to Show Girls “as They Really Are”. The New York Times, 3 July 2012. https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/after-petition-drive-seventeen-magazine-commits-to-show-girls-as-they-really-are/


Keegan, R. (2014). Celluloid Ceiling Report: Scant Progress for Women Behind Film Scenes. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-women-directors-writers-in-hollywood-20140114-story.html#axzz2qiYSQk00


Kilbourne, J., & Media Education Foundation. (2010). Killing us softly: 4. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.


Martin, M. C., & Gentry, J. W. (1997). Stuck in the Model Trap: The Effects of Beautiful Models in Ads on Female Pre-Adolescents and Adolescents. Journal of Advertising, 26(2), 19–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189031


Munzenrieder, K. (2018, November 9). Victoria’s Secret Exec Explains Why They Don’t Use Trans or Plus-Sized Models. W Magazine. https://www.wmagazine.com/story/victorias-secret-fashion-show-ed-razek-comments-trans-plus-size-models


Obama, B. (2016, August 4). Exclusive: President Barack Obama Says, “This Is What a Feminist Looks Like”. Glamour. https://www.glamour.com/story/glamour-exclusive-president-barack-obama-says-this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like


Peiss, K. (2000). On Beauty... and the History of Business. Enterprise & Society, 1(3), 485–506. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23699594


Rajagopal, I., & Jennifer Gales. (2002). It’s the Image That Is Imperfect: Advertising and Its Impact on Women. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(32), 3333–3337. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4412464


Richins, M. L. (1991). Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 71–83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489486


Sampson, R. (2015). Film Theory 101 — Laura Mulvey: The Male Gaze Theory. Film Inquiry. https://www.filminquiry.com/film-theory-basics-laura-mulvey-male-gaze-theory/


Smith, M. This 24-Year-Old Dropped Out of Colombia to Build a $140 Million Underwear Brand. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/how-parade-underwear-ceo-cami-tllez-built-a-140-million-business.html

Comments

Post a Comment