Our customers cannot simply switch off or turn a page
June 14, 2016 6:33 AM   Subscribe

Body-shaming adverts to be banned on London transport by Sadiq Khan (SLIndy)

As always, don't read the comments. However the 'The most important plus-size moments in fashion' at the bottom of the article while a little frivolous has some great images
posted by Megami (34 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- loup



 
I like this guy.
posted by Artw at 6:38 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Remarkable how pretty much all those important plus-size moments in fashion mysteriously involve women in lingerie or swimsuits. There are plus-size women who model while fully clothed. How about featuring the rise in celebrity plus-size lines? (Beth Ditto, Melissa McCarthy, Rebel Wilson, etc?) Or Ashley Graham's new clothing line? How about the signing of Zach Miko -- the first plus-size male model to get a major agency contract?

How about not pretending that air-brushed plus-size models with perfect hourglass curves and no visible cellulite or stretch marks are actually significantly more representative of what fat people see when they take off their clothes than any other kind of airbrushed models.

Love the idea of not including body shaming adverts on the Tube and all, but that slideshow isn't a counterexample. It's just more of the same in a slightly larger package.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:54 AM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


I'd really, really like to not be bombarded with unattainable, nonexisting beauty ideals all day, every day, wherever I go. This seems like a definite step in the right direction.
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Advertising on our network is unlike TV, online and print media. Our customers cannot simply switch off or turn a page if an advertisement offends or upsets them and we have a duty to ensure the copy we carry reflects that unique environment.

Really this is an argument against selling advertising at all in public places. Nobody can choose not to look. It's not just about offense or upset, but the sheer issue of consent.
posted by Emma May Smith at 7:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


By the time they're showing all that, it's not going to be remarkable any more, it'll just be what people look like in ads.

It was a really big deal when Jackie Robinson first played baseball professionally in the MLB and it really only happened when it did because he was an amazing athlete. Years later, it's not remarkable when some average professional baseball player starts his career and happens to be black.

It's not a slide show about where we're going, but how far we've come.
posted by VTX at 7:37 AM on June 14, 2016


This doesn't really seem too controversial. There are already Tfl advertising standards. This just seems like a specific enforcement of them.


Advertisements will not be approved for, or permitted to remain on
TfL’s services if, in TfL’s reasonable opinion, the advertisement falls
within any of the following categories.
...
(d) The advertisement is likely to cause widespread or serious
offence to members of the public on account of the nature of the
product or service being advertised the wording or design of the
advertisement or by way of inference.
...
(e) The advertisement depicts men, women or children in a sexual
manner or displays nude or semi-nude figures in an overtly
sexual context.
For example, while the use of underdressed people in most
underwear advertising may be seen as an appropriate context,
gratuitous use of an overtly sexual nature will be unacceptable.

posted by vacapinta at 7:48 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


If only the NYC subway would do away with that horrible sad-faced-woman-holding-oranges advertisement.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:57 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's only a matter of time before Khan gets parachuted into leadership of the Labour Party.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:07 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Seeing as the last two Labour leadership elections seem to have been regarded as 'megashit, no lols 4 any contender', don't expect Khan to jump at the chance.
posted by The River Ivel at 8:13 AM on June 14, 2016


Same ad, same model, offending body covered by full Victorian bathing attire.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:23 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


This policy was first proposed by Tessa Jowell, one of Sadiq Khan's defeated rivals for London Mayor. It's no bad thing that Khan has picked up the idea, but it would be nice to see Jowell get some of the credit.

This doesn't really seem too controversial.

You might think so. But at the time, TfL said that the 'beach body ready' advert didn't contravene their standards, and the Advertising Standards Authority, in its wisdom, decided that the advert was 'unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence'. When Tessa Jowell first proposed the idea of a ban, she was criticised by the advertising industry for being 'irresponsible' and there were the usual comments about humourless feminists (doubtless from the same trolls who are now claiming that Sadiq Khan wants to see women covered up in burqas).
posted by verstegan at 8:33 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]




Same ad, same model, offending body covered by full Victorian bathing attire.

Nobody's saying that the model's body is offensive. What's offensive is the ad saying: "Your body probably doesn't look like this. And beach season's coming up; don't you feel really terrible about your body? Buy our product, quick."
posted by lisa g at 8:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm with the group that says ban all ads in public spaces. if I want to know about your product I'll google it or go to a mall. I wake up most everyday not thinking about buying new shit and I like to not be pestered about it till I'm good and ready. Bonus: people might consume less stuff.
posted by freecellwizard at 9:16 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Apparently my other comment got deleted, so I'll have to rephrase it.

How is this ad any different than any number of ads for luxury items that are simply unattainable for 95% of the population?

I'd really, really like to not be bombarded with unattainable, nonexisting beauty ideals all day, every day, wherever I go. This seems like a definite step in the right direction.

Change "beauty" above to "achievement" and it's pretty much the same thing.

Fat shaming, poverty shaming, where does it end?
posted by eas98 at 9:32 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


What is your point? It sounds an awful lot like 'no one should care about this because there are other problems in the world'. Surely that can't be it?
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think a slogan like "Are you beach body ready?", or an ad like the sad woman with oranges ad, plays on a very specific kind of shame -- the first one, at least, would not work without the subtext that wearing a swimsuit while not being thin is shameful. And I mean, that's a message that a lot of us have heard over and over from family, from friends, from tabloids gloating about some celebrity's beach pictures with their thigh cellulite.

As terrible as advertising is, I rarely see ads where the subtext is "you should feel ashamed because you can't afford it." What's the point? You don't advertise to people who can't afford to buy your stuff. (Obviously there are a lot of luxury car ads where the subtext is "you should feel awesome about yourself for being able to afford it," but I feel like that's different.)

I'm hugely in favor of reducing the amount of advertising in public spaces in general, but I do think that these ads make me feel gross in a very particular way.
posted by Jeanne at 9:55 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


As terrible as advertising is, I rarely see ads where the subtext is "you should feel ashamed because you can't afford it." What's the point? You don't advertise to people who can't afford to buy your stuff.

Luxury brands do advertise to the plebeians all the time. You will never be able to buy a Chanel dress or a Birkin handbag, but you can buy a tiny bottle of #5, or an Hermès leather belt, or a Le Pliage bag. But these luxury brands never insult or shame you for not being able to buy higher end products, they treat the cheapo products as if they represented the high end products so you have the illusion of sharing the glamorous luxury lifestyle. And that's the difference with the body shamers.
posted by sukeban at 10:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


...and I like to not be pestered about it till I'm good and ready.

I'm with you on this but, there is a bit of grey area. For example, I really don't like the people at the cell phone stands in the mall who try to get everyone who walks by to talk to them about their phone. I don't need that, I somewhat regularly check our other options for cell phone carriers and I've done enough research that, at time, I'm probably more knowledgeable than the people at the mall stand.

But then I see an ad for a video game that I haven't heard about before that looks fun so I check it out and maybe I start playing it. It used to be that there was no way for a game to be a big enough deal to be on any traditional media (magazine ads, TV, billboards) without me knowing about but I don't have the time or desire to follow gaming that closely anymore so I kind of need advertising to let me know about stuff I might enjoy.

Oh, an even better example is Eggs. We usually bought the cheapest, store-brand eggs but we saw ads for "Eggland's Best Eggs" and dismissed them for years. Their message is that they're more expensive eggs but they taste better and are better for you. We finally broke down and looked into it and were surprised to learn that they really are better for you so we bought a dozen and did a blind taste test and we were surprised that they really do taste better! Not a ton better but we felt that the two things together made them a better value even at the higher price. We needed to see those commercials and we needed to see them a lot of times before we finally got good and ready to buy their product. Granted, they're not really shaming us into it unless there is a "aren't you ashamed of your shitting diet" subtext.
posted by VTX at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


There are already Tfl advertising standards.

You can expect a lot more posturing from Khan as he positions himself for leader.
posted by Coda Tronca at 10:27 AM on June 14, 2016


You can expect a lot more posturing from Khan as he positions himself for leader.

No fighty intent, but do you reckon? The accusation of postering seems predicated on the idea that the TFL guidelines were being correctly applied - which the whole Protein World farrago suggests is not the case, or at least is not the case in the opinion of the Mayor of London.

And if this is posturing ahead of a leadership bid, it's quite a long way ahead, it feels. I could have seen Boris driopping the Mayor of London gig to take a tilt at the leadership, but it feels like a less Labour thing to do - especially since as a Labour leader you really depend on London votes in a way that a Conservative leader doesn't for your parliamentary seats.

I don't have much of a dog in the fight either way, but this doesn't seem very posturey, or much related to a leadership bid.

(There's also the question of who would want to be Labour leader right now - the party being divided and riven by faction in a fashion so exciting that David Cameron had to torpedo his own party with an EU referendum just to keep up.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:07 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


who would want to be Labour leader right now

Labour's Blairite MPs know they can't get rid of Corbyn due to his massive - and still growing - support among the membership. So I think they're resigned to waiting until after he is defeated in 2020 thanks to the support of every single media outlet in the country (including the ones aimed at kids like Vice), and the fact that he never wanted to be leader and can't really be bothered any more.

The ad doesn't seem to breach any guidelines.
posted by Coda Tronca at 11:30 AM on June 14, 2016


But then I see an ad for a video game that I haven't heard about before that looks fun so I check it out and maybe I start playing it.

I think there's a big difference between marketing in the Edward Bernays sense and advertising in the here's-my-shit-come-and-get-it sense. It's this difference that drives the movement towards plain white cigarette packages, for example. If you look at advertising from the 1800's, it's nearly all about the cost or (wildly exaggerated) quality of the product. Contrast the 2010's.
posted by klanawa at 12:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Here in New York, we could've used this guy back in the early 90's when every other subway ad was for foot diseases and anal warts. (No, I am not kidding).
posted by jonmc at 12:38 PM on June 14, 2016


I think you're right, I suppose that what I really rail against is the "here's-my-shit-come-and-get-it" tone.

When the message is "You don't know about our shit but once that's changed, you'll come to us" I usually don't mind as long as the company is accurate in it's perception of what the average person knows about their product. I know everything I need to know to make decisions about my wireless carrier and I'll seek out more info on my own if there are gaps. So I get annoyed with the sales people at the mall who seem to think that if only I knew about their latest promotion, I'd want to talk to them.

But I usually respond well to your product and your ads if your business model is basically, "Build a really good widget and let it's quality and value sell itself."
posted by VTX at 12:43 PM on June 14, 2016


Re: guidelines - I guess 3.1.d?

The advertisement is likely to cause widespread or serious offence to members of the public on account of the nature of the product or service being advertised the wording or design of the advertisement or by way of inference.

Inference is slippery, but I figure that's the relevant section. The ASA did not uphold the complaints, but TFL might have used that had the ASA not prohibited the ads from being redisplayed anyway because of truthfulness concerns...
posted by running order squabble fest at 1:46 PM on June 14, 2016


One of the refreshing things about my recent trip to London and Cornwall was just how little public-space advertising there is. In New York there's no escape from ads anywhere.
posted by rikschell at 2:19 PM on June 14, 2016


I know this is the UK, but if in the US, I wonder how this would interact with "freedom of speech."

I mean, sure, the beach body is not realistic for most people, but for those who care to try to achieve, why does it matter? On my list of personal goals, being attractive to random strangers is very, very low (possibly negative) on the list. So this ad does nothing for me. Maybe our goal should be to tell people, "it's ok to not be physically attractive" rather than "everybody is equally sexually attractive." (Besides the fact that the latter is just patently not true.)

And I agree with other comments above: There are a whole slew of advertisements based on shame. In the US, it's a lot of nice cars and home loans and video game systems. If we ban "body shaming", why don't we ban "rentership shaming" or "drive a cheap car shaming"? Ultimately, what's the difference?
posted by ethidda at 2:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I thought Cosmopolitan magazine et al put ARE YOU BEACH BODY READY? on the front cover on nearly every issue for the last 40 years. One of the only reasons Khan can speak about this is because the ad was made by some crappy little powders company called 'Protein World' rather than a giant media conglomerate who he needs on side.
posted by Coda Tronca at 3:09 PM on June 14, 2016


"I mean, sure, the beach body is not realistic for most people, but for those who care to try to achieve, why does it matter? "

Well for one thing, it's well-established that exposure to this type of advertising on billboards, etc., -- which, recall, cannot be avoided except by staying at home all the time, since unlike a magazine or a television ad, you can't opt out -- increases eating disorders, anxiety, depression, and self-harming behavior in adolescent girls. Other research indicates that the more exposure adolescent girls have to this type of advertising, the earlier and riskier their sexual behavior is likely to be.

So I feel like it matters rather a lot in the sense that to increase the profits of a handful of corporations, we're willing to tell half of our children that they're worthless unless they're pretty, and deliberately allow advertising behavior that we KNOW causes mental illness in women.

You may be a very well-evolved adult fully capable of filtering out offensive and harmful advertising messages, but you're also not a 14-year-old girl with a still-developing brain being bombarded with these messages every single day if you dare to leave the house. It makes the world hostile and harmful for young women. That's why it matters.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:55 PM on June 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


What is your point? It sounds an awful lot like 'no one should care about this because there are other problems in the world'. Surely that can't be it?

That's uncharitable. I had the same thought but it was that lots/most of ads are aspirational and are designed to make you long for things that aren't attainable. Maybe if you take this product you're going to have a supermodel body. Maybe if you buy this MX5 you'll stop hating your family life. Maybe if you spray on this cologne, supermodels will knock down this door.

Now, we can talk at length about the extent that body shaming stands aside from those other ways of letting you you're a slob who hates your family and doesn't date supermodels - and I think it does - but I think making you feel like a missing-out sucker is a huge keystone of advertising.
posted by ftm at 4:48 PM on June 14, 2016


I read the comments. I learned a new insult: numpty muppet. That is all.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 10:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


'numpty muppet' is a bit of a redundant phrase, I would say. The use of the word muppet as an insult in the UK would be interchangeable with the use of numpty AFAIK. Not that I advocate using muppet as an insult, I like muppets. Some of my best friends were muppets when I was growing up!

OT this looks like a good thing for Khan to do, especially during Ramadan when some of us are supposed to be thinking pure thoughts. However, I have to agree with Coda Tronca that were this advert placed by a mega-corp then Khan would have found another fight to focus on.
posted by asok at 5:36 AM on June 15, 2016


How is this ad any different than any number of ads for luxury items that are simply unattainable for 95% of the population?

The only barrier to luxury goods is cash money, or the exchange of something with cash value. There is a non-zero chance that I could win the lottery and have access to all the material possessions I desire. Virtually impossible, but non-zero.

There is zero -- zero -- chance I would or could ever look like that beach body. I'm just not built that way. I'm 5'7", half -Polish, and strong like ox. Years ago I was fencing and not eating well and in "the best shape of my life" and I dropped to my lowest weight and size as a adult. I was so thin that my doctor read me the riot act. That weight/size combo was 145 lbs and a size 8/10. The fact that the woman in the "satirical" response ad is considered plus-sized is insane. As in, divorced from reality.

In addition, these ads ads are particularly toxic because they include elements of inherent racism and ageism not present in ads for watches and cars. It's also worth mentioning that the women in these ads are not immune. If they weren't teased for being too tall or too skinny when they were younger they probably get more than a few "skinny bitch" insults hurled their way.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:14 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older How to grow a Weetabix   |   Uncovering Forgotten Stories of Hiroshima Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments