As much as we love it when advertisers use manneqins to sell other products beside clothing (Sony Vaio for example) we are a bit disheartened with this cosmetic ad. We saw this on the AboutFace.org blog and decided to post it here. About Face is devoted to combating negative and distorted body images of women.
Allow Elizabeth Arden to Point Out Your Flaws Vogue April 2009 Prevage AdIt’s not enough that in advertising most photos are endlessly retouched, often beyond recognition. But to have the chutzpah to use a mannequin in place of a real woman as part of the ad is ridiculous and insulting! Well, that’s Prevage, the new product from Elizabeth Arden.
The obvious dividing lines around the major limbs of the body (for easy detachment and renewal, perhaps) are what caught my eye in the ad in the April 2009 issue of Vogue. Of course, such lines are never found on a real woman, but only on a mannequin.
The ad is seemingly innocuous and even pleasing to the eye: simple colors, simple lines, and a simple message. The text is also simple: from a terse “total transformation” to a full statement, “I want firmer, smoother looking skin with no sign of stretch marks or age spots” to the actual name, “Prevage” which of course reads: “prevent age.” However, the psychological effect it has on women is anything but simple.
The tube of Prevage is strategically placed at the forefront and blown up to the size of the wom– er– mannequin. The advertisement states to the consumer that not only will this cream help with all the head-to-toe problems (come on, admit it, you’re just not perfect), but that every woman is plighted with such problems that need to be either prevented or taken care of ASAP.
Great, where do I buy a tube, or three, or, what’s the limit again? Finally: a solution to ALL our (women’s) peskiest problems! This is exactly how the advertisers want the consumer to react. But who allotted those problems?
Although a bottle of Prevage first appears as a salvation, they are not actually promoting a solution. What they are doing is making women feel damaged and shameful of being a functioning human being. How about this for a retort: “It is better to be a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.”? Thank you, Confucius.
What I don’t understand is this: Are they saying that after using their ground-breaking cream a woman will end up looking as “perfect” as a mannequin? Or that the mannequin is the epitome of beauty, which a cosmetic surgery enthusiast can’t even live up to? To use Photoshop to take a blemish or two off a model is the rage, but to use a man-made statue as the promoter of a cream is just absurd.
I personally do not know of any men who have complained about crow’s feet or a stretch mark, or whatever else the cream is supposed to erase and banish from existence. But a perfectly lifeless girlfriend? That might raise a few complaints.