Paper #2

The Ugly side of Beauty: An advertising analysis

 

Popular opinion would suggest that the modern era congests us with manipulating beauty ads, but advertisements have been at it much longer than 15 years. Ever since the 20’s makeup ads have been influencing young women into thinking “if I don’t buy that product then I can never be beautiful.” The three ads I have chosen all have one thing in common: each possess obnoxious catch phrases plastered on top of a high fashion model/actress addressing how glamorous you can appear with that one product. The ads are individually thirty years apart but still convey the same message. Advertisers only have one duty, that being to trick and sell. 36 companies in the U.S., according to Advertising Age.com (Austin), spend more than $1 billion a year on ads. An astonishing number, but well worth it considering Americans spend 8 billion dollars on cosmetics each year (Matters of Scale).

The first ad published in 1952 displays Marilyn Monroe, “one of Hollywood’s most glamorous stars,” (as stated in the ad) striking a pose for Westmore Hollywood Cosmetics. The Tru-Glo liquid makeup is evidently supposed to vanish all of your imperfections, as most ads promise. On the outside, Marilyn is beaming. Either it’s her “supposedly” internal happiness or the makeup. Advertisers want us to believe that using their products will make you appear more glamorous, which in turn will make you happy. The irony in this is that the model they have used to sport their makeup is actually the best example to prove the falseness of that statement. The glamour factor of the ad though is very apparent. Marilyn’s face is not only showing, but also the top half of her body. Her yellow bustier looking top and bleach blonde hair give her extra glam, along with her glistening earrings. The ad basically promises a Hollywood approved makeup look, which proves the dishonesty of advertisers, and their willingness to trick consumers.

The second advertisement from 1983 presents a woman with a striking pure complexion, bright blue eyes, and pearly white teeth. It’s evident that the product being sold is foundation, but not just because there are six bottles of it on the ad. The main focus is her perfect spot-less skin which draws the consumer in immediately.

What captures the eye even further is the “It’s not just how good you look…but how long you look good.” This statement can only teach two things: If you aren’t wearing a long wearing foundation you won’t look good, but if you do you will look good and for the entire day. This message is obnoxiously self-conceited and doesn’t teach girls anything of importance. It merely teaches that “looking good” and for the whole day should be your only worry. Furthermore, the forged, tasteless smile daubed on the model’s face only makes the ad seem even more insincere.

The final words of the ad state that “Long Wearing make-up by Maybelline keeps you looking good all day.” But what does “looking good” really mean? Looking like the model? Wearing foundation? Or perhaps wearing a foundation that will stay on all day? This ad is misleading and targets naïve young girls that will buy the product because they believe it is the only way to “look good.” Not even considering what that really means and/or the importance of firstly feeling beautiful on the inside.

The third and final ad, published only two years ago highlights the ever so famous model, Kate Moss. She is demonstrating the Rimmel “Scandaleyes Show Off” mascara. The words “STEAL THE SHOW” are enlarged and in black with a pink background, adding additional emphasis on them. The level of self-conceitedness is disgusting. It seems that, to beauty advertisers their only goal is to make women believe that every day should be a competition of “who looks the prettiest.”

Something peculiar about the ad is that Kate’s lashes don’t even stand out much. It isn’t her lashes that “Steal the show” but the fact that she is Kate Moss. Her reputation is what gives her attention, not long, thick lashes. The description of the mascara exudes even more selfishness. A “Breakthrough show off brush” begins the description, and the closing “Don’t be shy!” really completes the whole ad. Like I have repeated throughout my entire analysis essay, it is obnoxiously evident that advertisers go as far as to guilt trip young girls into buying their products. By using catch phrases like “show off” and “steal the show,” young women believe that they must fall prey to those exact words or else they will not be beautiful.

All three advertisers successfully demonstrate their acquired skills to produce advertisements that particularly target young women; misguiding them along the way into believing untrue things. Advertisers only have money on their mind, and will stop at nothing to harvest numbers of ads per year, to reap in the profits.

Something I find extremely important to note, are the changing expressions of all three models throughout the sixty plus years of advertisements. Marilyn Monroe looks genuinely happy in ad number one. The model in ad number two looks like she is faking a smile. And in ad number 3 Kate Moss honestly looks angry, and snotty. She looks unapproachable and gives off the vibe that she is above everyone. It’s noticeable how throughout time, our appreciation for the consumer and product has declined. Although the ads are thirty years apart they still use the same skills and tactics to trick consumers into buying their products.

 Advertisers and sellers were much more genuine years ago, and the products were worth the money spent on them. Nowadays the advertising business is strictly money, which we have witnessed through the hire cost of products and lowered quality. The only way to stand up to advertisers is to not fall prey to their gimmicks, but instead purchase products for your own interest, not just because “Rimmel London” tells you it will make you happier. Instead of using tricks, advertisers would have a much more positive business if they used uplifting slogans to remind every consumer of their inner beauty and self-worth.