In a world full of creative geniuses, in order to be successful at selling an idea or product one must reach to the target buyers in their Achilles’ heel. Please read the following articles What if all the major fashion brands ditched supermodels and hired super women instead? and ‘Super Women’ Replace Supermodels In Fashion Ads And The Results Are Epic.
Every day society is faced to advertisement. Even if an individual does not notice it, we are constantly exposed to ads that deliver the message of whether we can or cannot live with or without certain product. These advertisements picture the product very appealingly to the individual and he or she is then directly thrown into the desire of acquiring it. How do advertisements sell their idea? They hit on the buyers weak points. They present the product or idea using individuals with certain characteristics. These characteristics typically are traits any woman or men wished he or she had. By picturing the product with this “perfect individual” the public is attracted to the product.
Advertisers base their campaigns only on superficial traits that attract people. They use super models that are only known because of their flawless physical features. Buyers do not even know their names in most cases, unless it is a recognized super model. But again, to be a recognized super model you just have to fit into the perfect parameters society sets. What would happen if this advertisements substitute the super models with important figures? Would it be as effective? Or maybe even more effective?
Recently Céline, had one of the most influential writers in America, Joan Didion, pose for their sunglasses campaign. Given this, Elisa Rodriguez-Villa, was then attracted to Photoshop important woman figures in big name brands’ advertisements. About Joan Didion’s for a Cé campaign, she says “I’ve never even been able to afford a pair of socks by Céline, but all of the sudden they had my attention on so many levels”. She explains that the reason of her project is that when she recently skimming throught fashion magazines she was getting bored of seeing always the same: woman whom you did not even know their names but had the “perfect characteristics.” Rodriguez-Villa states that after seeing such an important figure, as Jian Didion, in the advertisement she was suddenly attracted to the product, an attraction she probably wouldn’t have felt if a super model was modeling it. Being this the situation, I ask you why do you think that advertisements use perfect super models to sell their products instead of actual important people whom have accomplished significant and influential things?
I would say that this is because people of such importance would be out of context posing and / or supporting these expensive brands. Take for example the photo-shopped image by Rodriguez-Villa of Malala Yousafzai with the Louis Viutton bags. Malala is an activist for female education that had lived through extreme poberty conditions and is fighting against sexism; why would she be posing besides these brands’ expensive bags? With the money needed to buy this product she could, and probably would, use it for another cause. So, do you believe if that by using important figures brands would rise their sells or people would just be confused by having to different poles in one image? Or the success of the campaign depends most likely on the product?
For more information about the Joan Didion Céline campaign visit Joan Didion Stars In Céline’s New Campaign.
Feminism and Women's Bodies 
I think the main issue with “ditching supermodels and hiring super women instead” is that a lot of the time, society has polarized the two. For example: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Malala are all powerful women whose success has absolutely nothing to do with their looks, or at the very least, their looks are completely separate from the successes that I admire them for. I think the Joan Didion Céline campaign is interesting, however personally it doesn’t make me want to go out and buy Céline, probably because 1) I can’t afford it and 2) Didion is not someone I can identify by face. And honestly, the fake campaign with Malala posing next to the Louis Vuitton suitcases just seems so wrong—there’s just something so tasteless about it to me. I disagree that the resulting image is “epic”.
I think the reason why I would not be more inclined to buy from companies represented by “super women” is because the ideals and values they represent are more important than material objects. Maybe that’s why the Malala/Vuitton picture seems so ludicrous: Malala’s work is just infinitely more meaningful then a cluster of monogrammed cases.
Another problem is that the advertisements shown in the HuffPost article only speak to fashion—luxury fashion at that. Luxury, to me, is all about beauty and sex. It would only be appropriate that such advertisers feature supermodels. However, I might be more inclined to by swayed by an advertisement featuring a woman of power if it were for a more practical item. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg advertising classic tennis shoes that I wear almost everyday—I might consider buying that.
I agree fully with the idea that pairing Malala and céline bags is absolutely ridiculous. Malala is admired for the values and ideas she represents and so bravely speaks about, and to use her as a model for céline bags is confusing to say the least. The problem with advertisement is that it sexualizes women in efforts to draw the attention of both men and women. And by drawing attention of women I also mean in the non-conventional way of making them feel self-conscious, and allowing them to feel bad about the fact that they may not necessarily look just like the woman being portrayed in the image.
I also find a problem with “powerful women” replacing supermodels in advertisements because the purpose of advertisements are to sell superficial items. Most of the time, being called superficial is an insult. I feel like combining the two is confusing in the sense that these powerful women are supposed to be role models, and no one loves being called superficial.
In your comment when stating of having a probelm with powerful women used to advertise, you are doing exactly what @scoutus commented and @riches296 supported; you are undermining models because of their job. You are calling them “superficial”. But I don’t believe that’s what the idea of using powerful women in advertisement is about. The idea of powerful woman in advertisement is not to judge models, it is a strategic to promote and rise sells of the product.
@kiarabhagwanjee in her response to your comment states my point; it is strange to put together in one image objects and people from completely different poles but that does not mean that one is better / worse than the other, and that the job of one of them should be criticized. They each just have different purposes and principles, and therefor different audience.
I agree with you that putting someone who is thought of as an extremely influential thinker in some part of the intellectual world next to something that is mostly materialistic and superficial is strange. But, for the sake of conversation, I also think that the sexualization of a woman (or a man) that occurs inherently when we look at these advertisements is not necessary. Advertising companies use these images of women to seduce you into thinking that something is great and worth purchasing because it is luxurious and “beautiful.” If we market things a different way, emphasize that women can own these things and want these things and still be smart and powerful. I in no way mean to say that models and actresses aren’t smart and powerful I think they are. I think they have an incredible power to influence that is often underrated but they work in a different industry to Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Michelle Obama; they resonate a different image.
I truely agree with the above, its the common and overused saying “sex sells” and its used to a ridiculous degree. From a male persepective the advertisements targeting me can become even more idiotic, a comercial for some type of food? lets through essentially nude models into it! that makes sense right? A commercial for homedepot? sexy builder girls all around. Its an idea shrouded in such stupitity, it eschews all the cleverness that marketing should employ and instead replaces it with an [insert product]+[edgy name]+[form of boobs or ass]=profit. so stupid.
I think the use of important figures versus supermodels in advertisement all depends on what is actually being advertised. A classic example is professional tennis player Serena Williams posing for Nike. If I like tennis and I look up to Williams, then using her for the ad will most definitely make me want to buy Nike’s activewear. Seeing a famous and excellent athlete modeling activewear is a good technique for advertisement and will most definitely help rise the sales. Now, if you take Williams and use her for a campaign advertising lingerie, for example, it may not be a good technique. People wanting to buy lingerie would not care that Williams is the #1 female tennis player and an influential woman because it really doesn’t have to do anything with feeling beautiful/sexy in lingerie. People want to see something that appeals their eye, something that would make them think that buying that lingerie would make them look as sexy/beautiful as the one’s advertising it. That’s why using supermodels for lingerie campaigns are quite successful.
In the Serena Williams advertisement for Nike, this selling strategy might be effective because Nike is including in its advertisement a significant figure that in her success (top tennis players of the world) she actually needs to wear this kind of clothing. By using her as the main face of the campaign they are not disorientating her success actions, like for example Malala besides the Louis Viutton bags, instead Williams is related with the product being sold. You @byak1 are stating my point exactly when campaign how would the campaign turn out if Williams was the face for the lingerie campaign; it will probably not be as effective as to use a woman known for her sexiness and hotness. You are saying that in order for the advertisement to be effective the face of the campaign should me somewhat related with the product being sold right? Therefor I was you the question of Tampax’s campaign with Serena Williams as well; for what she is known for Tampax is not vital, so how and why can this campaign be effective? Is it an in between between Nike’s campaign and what would be Malala for Louis Viutton?
@faca30, Yes I am saying that the person used for the advertisement should be somewhat related to the product. In my opinion, using Serena Williams for the Tampax campaign was effective because they are appealing to women who are active/play sports just like Williams. They want consumers to believe that they can be able to be active and play sports comfortably using Tampax. And Malala for Louis Vuitton just really doesn’t make any sense.
I agree with @lilsebastian completely! I think that what the fashion companies are trying to do is great – giving themselves more meaning and depth. The reality is, they don’t have that meaning or depth. Companies try to sell you their product buy having a supermodel hold it, or having a supermodel talk about it, or having a supermodel pose near it because they are beautiful and because they are aesthetically pleasing. I, as a consumer, am more inclined to see Gisele Bundchen holding a Chanel purse and want to buy it because Gisele looks amazing with it, rather than Ruth Bader Ginsberg, though she is an amazing woman. It’s shallow, but true. I think it is a nice attempt, but it is almost insulting to these famous women to have them serving this purpose; they have a lot more ability than just being a marketing tool.
I think that fashion companies using important figures to give them more meaning and depth is a little bit controversial because they are using faces for their campaign whose success has nothing to do with what this campaigns are advertising. Agree completely with both of you @gwugossipgirl and @littlehorseisbigdeal !
@gwugossipgirl I really like the point that you rise of being more interested in buying a product that relates better (and therefor looks better) on a supermodel rather than a figure whom you would never imagine wearing this product. If you as a consumer think this advertisement approach is less effective, probably fashion companies think as well because we have not seen real advertisement my fashion companies with important figures as the main face, only the proposed photoshops by Rodriguez-Villa.
I can’t say that I would be more attracted to actually buying a product if a “super woman” I looked up to were modeling it, however I might be encouraged to look at the ad for longer. I’d be more likely to look at Laverne Cox’s outfit or inspect all of what Beyonce was trying to sell because I like them as people. I’d probably just glance over an unrecognizable, regular model. However this would not affect my purchases.
I agree that it wouldn’t necessarily cause me to want to buy the product more, but I might inspect the person wearing it more if I knew them.
So you are saying this approach into promoting sells is not effective as it would not affect your decision of purchasing or not, instead it would make you feel confused of why this woman is wearing this brand right? Notice that your reaction to an ad with a powerful woman is reflecting Rodriguez-Villa’s enthusiasm to start her project; when flipping through magazines she wouldn’t stop to look at the advertisements instead she would just skip rapidly because of being bored of looking at the same thing. Maybe by staring a little bit longer to the image you feel that you are not being pulled into buying it, but you do feel more attracted to it.
Seeing the photoshopped advertisements with influential women on them make me uncomfortable for some reason. I don’t know if it’s just that I don’t believe them and know they’re fake or if seeing these women in such unfamiliar circumstances is shocking. While I’ve never seen these women in advertisements yet, there are some more influential women who do choose to align with specific brands for whatever reason. Angelina Jolie advertised for Louis Vuitton for awhile and even Beyonce has advertised for L’Oreal and Pepsi. For me, both of these women are Super Women.
While I don’t feel comfortable saying that a supermodel’s work in fashion and advertising is less meaningful than let’s say Laverne Cox’s work as an actress and support of the transgender community, I will say that these women go into the field of work that they are good at and want to pursue. Why insult the work that models do? Of course it’s more superficial simply because it has to do more with appearance, but that does not necessarily mean it’s meaningless. I think women like Malala and Michelle Obama don’t advertise for companies simply because they don’t need or want to. Their interests don’t align with the interests of big corporations. However, maybe if Coke decides to run a campaign for worldwide health (bad example, I know), maybe they would reach out to Michelle Obama to gain support. Feldman also references this point. These fake advertisements are not meant to detract from the work of supermodels, they are simply to suggest a more inclusive advertising community. I think it’s important to remember this.
I agree with you that it is unfair to judge and think less of women who model. They have just as much right to do that, because they are free to make their own choices and shouldn’t be judged for it.
I agree with the concept that it is the women of influence that are advertising are kind of uncomfortable because its not right to see those that are in a position of power.
I think that the advertisements with these photoshopped “Super Women” don’t work because the advertising strategies that worked for the models just don’t work for these women. Using a person of name recognition in an advertisement is a different tactic and is executed very differently in advertising, as Jib Fowles elucidates with his list of SEPARATE appeals that advertisers use. The same strategies can’t be used for different appeals. It’s possible that having Malala advertise for LV would be very effective, but not in the photoshopped image that was not an advertisement meant to maximize her potential.
I think that the instance these articles propose is interesting and provocative. What we see in the media, whether we like it or not, perpetuates some kind of standard for the way we behave, and the way we appear. This transition from the what we see to what we aspire to be is evident in the way we use social media. There are beautiful pictures of us on Facebook, handsome pictures, nothing shows in a “bad” light. We want to be what we see around us. That’s what we see when we flip through magazines or watch movies, and so that’s what we want to be, because it’s the image of beauty and women that has been perpetuated through time. If we change that image to the one that Rodriguez- Vila is proposing we could begin to alter this image.
The media is powerful because of its reach and if you change the face of the media you enlighten a wide audience. My only reservation about changing this image is undermining those individuals who do make a living from the modeling industry and from the film industry. I think that I agree with @scoutus in that these women determined their own paths and that makes them “super models” too. Angelina Jolie and Emma Watson are two stellar examples. They have a face in the media and that has translated into a mass following in their endeavors for social justice in the UN.
The benefit I see in brining women like RBG and Hillary Clinton to the foreground of this type of media is the awareness it could create about the women who have taken charge of a different industry. It could change the face of who and what young people aspire to be.
I think that you definitely see a lot of this in advertising when the models are men, instead of women. For example, so many magazines feature pictures of men in sports or power positions on them. You can walk down the aisle at a grocery store and see 10 cereal boxes with NFL stars on them, but you don’t ever see a WNBA athlete on there. I think the world of advertising still might be scared of opening up its doors to advertisements with women in power on them, perhaps by thinking they are even more un-relatable than the models that they are currently using. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with this point, but perhaps when a woman is flipping through a magazine & sees a stick thin supermodel advertising a product she can say “Wow, I can be skinny like that.” But if you see Elizabeth Warren? You probably won’t be saying “Wow, I can have a job teaching law at Harvard just like her!” For some reason, the use of influential figures in advertising that seems to have infiltrated for men only, not women. I think this is a good place to start making that change, but it may come in phases. Right now the phase that many companies are moving towards is to actually stop re-touching and choosing models that more accurately reflect the population. Maybe once we’re all accustomed to those, Hillary Clinton will be on my cereal box.
I personally think that the idea of idealizing influential women is an interesting one, but at the same time, I think that there’s something superficial about this concept. It doesn’t really matter if I see a Chanel ad with RBG on it–I’m being encouraged to participate in consumerism and spend thousands of dollars on clothes and leather goods all the same, which to me cheapens the image of Ruth, who is a tremendously influential woman and very worthy of respect in her professional life. I also agree with @slytherinchick that I would probably only be more attracted to ads with these women in them because I know who they are and like the images that they project, not because they’re strong women. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with supermodels posing in advertisements, given that they are people doing their jobs, just as anyone else does. When I see a supermodel, I don’t see her as any less worthy of respect than someone like Beyoncé, even if I don’t know who she is.
I agree that putting those women in such a consumerism lights detracts from them, and make the entire image seem cheap and ridiculous. I also agree that the advertising world is a business, and even if supermodels set unrealistic standards, they are only doing their job.
I agree with both of you. Successful women like those mentioned above should be celebrated for whatever they excel at doing, or whatever great things that they have achieved. Just because they’re famous women doesn’t mean we need to slap them on fashion ads–it makes no sense. The only similarity between the models that were on the ads before they were Photoshopped out and women like Ginsberg and Malala who were Photoshopped in is that they’re women, and that isn’t even near a good enough reason.
It is interesting how you mention that this type of advertisement can also have a downward effect; instead of persuading the consumer into expending on the good it is creating a judgmental image of the powerful woman posing beside these expensive goods. I did not think of this possibility before. So maybe is the reason why we don’t see as many powerful women in advertisements as we would expect if the outcome for companies would be as beneficial as Rodriguez-Villa says in her article that would be.
I think that so many fashion designers already use famous figures in their advertising campaigns for selling purposes this question of “will celebrities help sell products” seems almost a little out of date or one that has already been answered. It is no secret that if consumers see a idol of theirs or a role model wearing certain clothing they will be more inclined to want to purchase it due to their admiring of their idol. Because this reaction seems understandable and likely designers such as Jennifer Aniston and her many Smartwater ads, or Beyonce with pepsi, or that SUPER weird burger ad with Paris Hilton. Yes, all these women are extremely beautiful too, like a supermodel, but there recognizable faces is what really sells those water bottles and burgers. Another example that I think is interesting that i would like to hear some opinions on is Supreme just had Neil Young, a famous musician, in their most recent campaign. Do you think that they are trying to gain the fandom of the older crowd who respects Neil Young, and used to listen to him back in the day? Will Supreme now gain a older customer base, will they try to change their products to appeal to a more mature crowd?
But idols do not always have to be powerful women. Kendall Jenner, for example, has become lately a role model for many teenagers. Seeing her in advertisement would probably encourage many girls to buy the product, but Kendall Jenner is known for being a model not for having done anything else as what I would indicate is whom powerful woman are. There is a distinction between powerful woman and influential models.
When it comes to using influential women over supermodels in advertisements. One one hand it would be nice to see the impossible standards set by supermodels in ads to be defied by using women who are not defined by their looks instead. On the other hand though commercializing these women who’s success has nothing to do with superficial components seems wrong. The advertisement seems right until you realize that an influential woman is not telling you to go out and succeed in what you love, but instead trying to get you to buy overpriced clothing. I agree with @leylaadali96 that it “cheapens the image” of these women, and I don’t think it is an accurate representation of what these women want to convey and inspire.
I think that if we want to break the unfortunate supermodel mold we need to use relatable real women as opposed to photoshopped flawless women. Either way though whether supermodels, real women, or influential women are being used one fact that remains constant is that these people have a job to sell clothing, and are used merely as backgrounds and hangers for the real stars of the shot- the product. No matter who is doing it it is advertisement, and there is no way to get around that.
I honestly think that the reason advertisers use impossibly beautiful women is to sell this idea of the perfect life. It creates this unrealistic paradise that we are all yearning for where everything is happy, bright, and beautiful. It creates this need for us to buy the product in an effort to buy the lifestyle. I think that if advertisers used influential women you wouldn’t necessarily notice the clothing anymore, because the woman pictured would overshadow the product.
These articles made me think about suits. The gentleman in the men’s warehouse commercials is just that: a gentleman. He isn’t a sex object with chiseled abs and young features he was cast because he inspires confidence in the viewer. Men watching the commercial can see him and imagine themselves as a venerable older gentleman who inspires respect and “likes the way he looks.” I think what’s important in advertising isn’t so much celebrity vs. model but appearance vs. image. Yeah Men’s warehouse ads do try and convince you that you’ll “like the way you look” but they aren’t really selling beauty, they’re selling the image of respectability and venerability. I see no reason why that can’t be a marketing strategy used on women as well.
I agree with your comment about why women’s ads can’t do that as well–but actually, they do. Here’s just one example: http://www.brit.co/modcloth-real-women-in-bathing-suits-campaign/. I would say that ModCloth is relatively the same level of a woman’s brand as Men’s Warehouse is for Men. The situation here is that the article above talks about high fashion brands, which have a kind of status to maintain. There, men aren’t really treated much better. See these examples: http://myhellofalife.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/emporio-armani-underwear-campaign1-468×662.jpg, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LG32si9yoRU/TMdH1lL0tPI/AAAAAAAACfY/lgqaGl1qguk/s1600/male+female+fashion1.jpg. And even if male models aren’t portrayed as sex objects, they really aren’t the best representation of the worlds population of men. Of course, I admit the perception of women’s bodies is a much larger problem.
I think when we discuss this issue it’s important to distinguish between famous women and “Super Women” in ads. For instance, an ad with Serena Williams is a whole different animal than an ad with Malala because they work in very different fields. Even though Williams doesn’t work in a field that directly promotes good looks and “perfect” body, it does so indirectly (athletes are expected to have gorgeous and healthy bodies). Meanwhile, people like Malala and Roxane Gay have professions that have nothing to do with physicality and appearance.
That said, I think both types could contribute to the advertisement industry. I don’t think Malala is a good choice for LV bags either, but I think we should take into account that Rodriguez-Vila made those ads to start a discussion and provoke thoughts – not to design an actual project. I think Malala would be a great person to promote brands that work with charities that support education and women throughout the world. I think when an ad features someone I know, I would be more likely to buy the product since I’d be connected not just to the product but also to the person advertising it.
Personally, I had an experience where I got obsessed over a brand just because it was advertised by a celebrity. I’m talking about the “Scandal” collection by the Limited. You can read more about it here: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/kerry-washington-scandal-clothing-limited-stores-2014256
It was advertised by Kerry Washington, the main actress of the Scandal series written by Shonda Rhimes. Even though I love that actress and the character she plays (Olivia Pope) not because of her looks, but because of her personality, I can’t deny that Washington does look gorgeous in the show. Every time I wear clothes from that collection and that store I feel a little bit more like Olivia – stronger, more powerful and more professional. It sounds silly, but that’s the way it is.
I honestly think this idea is a little ridiculous. These two areas: high fashion and powerful women, have literally nothing to do with each other, unless you say that most high fashion is directed at women, which in and of itself is an extremely problematic statement.
Each of these areas, high fashion advertising and the public presence of powerful women, both have downsides associated with them, but this isn’t the way to fix them at all. Like you mentioned, what does Malala have to do with Louis Vuitton? I would also like to think that she’d use that money elsewhere. Others, like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, have very politicized roles. Looking at the situation critically, why would you ever expect John Roberts model for Tom Ford? Ginsberg is a Supreme Court Justice. She doesn’t wear Chanel, I’m sure she has no interest in wearing Chanel, and being a face of Chanel has absolutely nothing to do with her public/political role. And even if it were a good idea, why is it’s fashion advertising place to promote powerful women? Again, just because women like fashion? Advertising is always going to be a ploy, a tactic that makes consumers (whoever they are) want to purchase the products of a company/brand. Using Joan Didion is probably beneficial and profitable to Celine in some way or another, but generally using an older woman in a judicial robe isn’t going to appeal to Celine’s target audience, so you’re never logically going to see that happen. Fashion advertising is always generally to be full of relatively young, attractive, men or women.
That’s not to say that there’s nothing wrong with fashion advertising as it is. Photoshopping is a huge problem (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/02/19/how-25-years-of-photoshop-changed-the-way-we-see-reality/).
But advertising is generally problematic because of its physical representation of women. Achievements have nothing to do with it. But I do believe that advertising campaigns, especially those aimed at women, need re-hauling. Models should more accurately represent normal women. Of course, they’ll always be slightly more beautiful than the younger women, but they should definitely represent reality considerably more than they currently do. Most ads are borderline fantasy.
As for powerful women, I think we should just appreciate them in the roles that they excell in.
I agree with @scoutus that we should not discredit the work that models do in our society because they are given a specific task and they are good at what they do. Those influential people that are featured in ads with the intent of making society envision themselves in the same setting. The superficial traits that advertisers base their campaigns on are not necessarily ineffective but they aren’t as effective as those ads that draw upon the real human experience and actually draw in factors that are relevant to people’s lives. I agree with @kelseylombard that the way that these models are viewed are as unattainable but there are still those that believe they achieve this appearance. I don’t agree with influential figures being used in campaign ads because it is a form of deceit to me in seeing people that others look up to only being used for the purpose of swaying the decisions of the impressionable. I feel as though it is a personal violation of the trust of consumers because simply paying off an influential figure to endorse a campaign is not the same as paying a normal person to since they hold the power to sway.