To Photoshop, or Not to Photoshop?

Photoshop. Does it deserve the cult following it has, or is it a tool of pure evil? One thing's for sure, advertising wouldn't be the same without it. 

In my humble opinion, photoshop is a doubled edged sword. On one hand, it's a valuable piece of software for making products and services look appealing, correcting images, and creating mind-blowing graphics and scenarios that would not be possible in reality. However, having a tool that can manipulate images so drastically and so realistically can be a dangerous thing when people are the ones being warped beyond recognition. 

I firmly stand by my opinion that Photoshopping models and celebrities into perfect mannequins is wrong. I understand why the editors and advertising agencies do this—featuring 'thin' impossibly proportioned women in magazines and billboards is not a new selling tactic—but the extent that they retouch their images can have a very negative effect on the self esteem of the consumers. We are constantly bombarded by these false depictions of the human body, causing us to question our own appearances and obsess over our own flaws. Women, men, and especially youth, are all prone to insecurity about their looks at some point, and having these strange, glamourous Photoshop Frankensteins to compare themselves to only makes things worse. 

If Photoshop is being used creatively, e.g. to superimpose a seal drinking Mountain Dew onto a surfboard, or in a way that's similarly absurd, then I don't see any real problem with that. Even in terms of editing products to make then look a little more appetizing, that's not nearly as big an issue as re-forming the contours of someone's face to make them look "sexier". Photoshop is a wonderful invention, and I certainly can attest to that, but it has a dark side when used too much in a more human context. 

The Mic Mac Mall Back to School Campaign

Yes I think they can be perceived as sexist ads. Especially the shallow slogans: "my favourite class? Shop!" It's not wrong of them to target young females because this is the demographic that does most of the shopping but it's the way they're doing it that's wrong. The images themselves, I see as not as offensive because 1.) they're cartoon like and therefore not to be taken literally and 2.) they are portraying fashionistas and the like, meaning skinny and perfectly dressed is unfortunately the norm for this type of advertising. If these had been pictures of real women, then the "negative" message would have been even more obvious. 

It's the wording that destroys the whole campaign, depicting young women as being unintelligent and obsessed with purchasing purses and shoes. Now this may be true of some women, but the vast majority of us do not always fit into such a stereotype. Thus, if the agency really wanted to appeal to such a demographic, they have greatly underestimated the sophistication and variety of their audience. We want to be treated as smart, capable individuals, so having ads like that displayed in public is not only demeaning but shows that the agency really isn't thinking about it's audience in the way it should.

The point is, the agency gets some shoppers, but not all of them. 

I wouldn't have run the campaign because I recognize how overly sensitive our world has become, and that if you're going to display ads that are making a public statement about a certain demographic, you have to be so careful how you're portraying and addressing them. Again, I have no problem with the idea of catering to certain women's love of shopping, because this is [art of the audience they want to appeal to, but the tone and tactics they use are easy to judge as shallow and easier still to interpret as sexist.

If the ads featured young men in them as well, the effect would be lessened. Even then, I believe there would still be some uproar about the portrayals of the young women along with them, because in general there is a sensitivity in our society towards the fragility of women's egos. At least then it would look like the ads were targeting two stereotypes, and not just one deadly one.

The Mic Mac Mall had no choice but to issue an apology if it wanted to retain any form of credibility with its consumer base. Regardless of the mall's innocent intentions concerning the ads, the campaign created enough of a backlash to damage the Mic Mac Mall brand, if not for a while, at least until the complaints clear. 

However, as much as the $5000 cheque seems like a good idea, it also feels to me like a desperate attempt to reclaim their consumer friendly image by being philanthropic. In other words, the damage has already been done. Charity is nice and all, but you'd think the mall would have spent more time reviewing how the agency's ads might be perceived in the first place, before running with them. What would I have done? Let the irate consumers hold a bonfire burning outside the mall of all the advertisements they find offensive. No, don't get alarmed, I'm only kidding. I would probably have done the same thing as the mall, only have the ad agency account for the $5,000 out of their own pocket, assuming they came up with the campaign idea. 

Hi There

This blog is a vehicle for my opinions on the different aspects of advertising, made for my Advertising and Marketing class. You don't have to agree with my point of view, but I hope it makes you think...