Two weeks ago we went to Santa Monica to ask people on the street what they thought of airbrushing in ads. Had they heard about the L’Oreal scandal in the UK? (You can read about it here.) Did they think it was ethical for brands to use airbrushing to sell beauty products? Would they buy from a company that they knew used airbrushing?
On a particularly sunny and crowded Saturday, we got the following responses from several young women we stopped on the street.
- Arielle, Long Beach: “It kind of sucks when companies use airbrushing.”
- Anglieque, Long Beach: “Airbrushing sends the wrong message to vulnerable teens who are worried about self-image.” “I would think twice before buying from that brand.”
- Abbie, England: “It’s misleading.”
- Lindsey, England: “It’s wrong because it’s not promoting the product in the right manner.”
- Nina, Encino: “Airbrushing is stupid because people with not perfect bodies look like they have perfect bodies and it’s not true. Then people get the wrong image, starve themselves and don’t end up with the body anyway.”
- Michelle, Palmdale: “Airbrushing is fake, very unrealistic and sends an unreal image.”
When we asked whether these women would buy from a brand that they knew used airbrushing, the responses varied from “probably not” to “no.” But our questions to you are: Do you think it is possible that there are brands that don’t use Photoshop in their ads? Would it be possible for a brand to succeed if it did not present a perfect image to the world?
Sound off below and let us know what you think!