Debenhams Unveils Beauty Untouched

First High Street Retailer to Use Un-airbrushed Images

Debenhams broke ranks with the rest of the high street today by using un-airbrushed photography in a trial window to launch new swimwear lines for the summer.

It believes that over use of some digital photography techniques to create unrealistic body shapes and flawless skin may instead can make women feel more insecure about their natural looks and size.

Debenhams will be canvassing customer feedback on the raw images in a move which highlights the retailer’s long standing commitment to encouraging positive body-image through minimal digital retouching.

Says Mark Woods, Director of Creative & Visual, “As a responsible retailer we want to help customers make the most of their beauty without bombarding them with unattainable body images.

“Our campaign is all about making women feel good about themselves – not eroding their self belief and esteem by using false comparisons.

“Not only does it make sense from a moral point of view, it ticks the economic boxes as well. Millions of pounds a year are spent by organisations retouching perfectly good images.

“As a rule we only airbrush minor things like pigmentation or stray hair and rely on the natural beauty of models to make our product look great.

“We are proud to bring the issue of re-touching into the main stream when the likes of Britney Spears and Madonna are using un-airbrushed but over-lit images as a shock tactic.”

Caryn Franklin, fashion commentator and broadcaster, says, “Retailers do have the power to take a stance on digital manipulation. Fashion and beauty imagery that is honest, is absolutely crucial for all women to see. I’m delighted that Debenhams has taken the lead here and customer feedback will no doubt validate this important step.”

Signage in the window will read: ‘We’ve not messed with natural beauty; this image is un-airbrushed. What do you think?’

It will also show customers an example of just how much the image could have been altered; including all of the following:

• Arms slimmed
• Legs made thinner
• Waist pulled in significantly
• Stray hairs tidied
• Skin tone changed and smoothed
• Creases in garments removed
• Under-eyes smoothed and lightened
• Cleavage enhanced
• Underarms tidied

Jo Swinson, Lib Dem MP and co-founder Campaign for Body Confidence MP said, “Its great news that Debenhams will be using images of real women who have not been digitally manipulated to advertise their new swimwear range.

“More and more people are realising that airbrushing and other trickery are not necessary in order for women to look beautiful.  I am sure that what this will demonstrate is that swimwear modelled by real women who have not been retouched can sell just as well as products advertised with extensive airbrushing, which has become the norm.

“Women can feel good about themselves knowing that beauty is not about achieving the unachievable.”

Other advertisers regularly use digital techniques to slim waists, lengthen legs, perfect teeth, and even change eye colour and skin tone.

This is not the first time Debenhams has shown its commitment to promoting positive body image – in January the store ran a trial with size 16 mannequins in windows. The trial gathered customer feedback on a more representative size having a presence on the high street.

Also in February, Debenhams released images using disabled model Shannon Murray to launch the retailer’s new Principles by Ben de Lisi range.

The window, which celebrates natural beauty, has been unveiled this week at the Debenhams Oxford Street store with staff members will be asking shoppers what they think, before the initiative is later rolled out across the country.

Continues Mark Woods, “We’ve been showing natural beauty for years and will continue to present women in a natural and positive way.”

ENDS

Now there is nothing wrong with reporting on this campaign. It is certainly something news worthy and the campaign is a good one. But given the apparent lack of actual reporting it’s fair to say I approached this campaign with some amount of scepticism. Was this a genuine effort from Debenhams to promote realistic body image or was it a cynical ploy to run a few unairbrushed pictures in their London Oxford Street store while continuing to airbrush everywhere else?  I would be lying if I said I didn’t believe it to be the latter, as I was quick to point out on Twitter.

I contacted Debenhams with my concerns and they were very quick to respond, at first they provided me with the press release but after a couple of emails addressed my main question; were they airbrushing girls slimmer in the rest of their material? They said;

“As a general rule, we don’t airbrush girls slimmer. This is not to say that it has never been done in Debenhams’ history but for economic as well as moral reasons we cast women who we feel represent our brand well as they are.

Previously we would ‘tidy’ pictures; so that’s the stray hairs, blemishes, pigmentation etc but with these images, the ‘before’ image is completely untouched.”

I am happy to admit I was wrong on this. Not only is Debenhams campaign genuine but their commitment not to airbrush girls slimmer is something that should be commended.

Body image is a massive issue in modern society and while this is an something that mainly effects women I have seen more and more images of men of vitruvian proportions and it is a worrying trend. We should all strive to lead healthy lives but the pedestal of unattainable perfection sets unrealistic goals, women who focus on unrealistic body images tend to have lower self-esteem and these images do nothing to celebrate the variety of all our body shapes.

Well done Debenhams.

The Daily Mail have done Camelot a favour by producing some ‘news’ so obviously designed as a lovely bit of PR that you look at the top of the page for the moniker ‘this is an advertisement’.

In this article they list the ‘luckiest’ names stating, “According to National Lottery records, you’re most likely to strike it lucky if you’re called John or Margaret.” What a load of bollocks. That doesn’t mean these names are lucky at all, all it means is that these names are popular.

If you randomly select names out of a hat and in this hat certain names appear more than others then obviously those names are going to be picked more often. Seriously is the author of this article the most gullible human being alive or did they just copy and paste a PR release from Camelot?

The article boldly claims that;

“Among those who have scooped £50,000 or more, the most popular men’s names are John, David, Michael, Peter, Robert, James, Paul, William and Stephen. And the luckiest women are named Margaret, Susan, Patricia, Mary, Christine, Elizabeth, Jean, Janet, Linda and Karen”

It practically reads like a list of most popular boys and girls names. The Daily Mail should really know this because they printed a list of most popular boys and girls names back in February. John the ‘luckiest’ name, in what can only be described as the most shocking coincidence of all time, happens to be the most popular boys name and Margret our ‘lucky lady’ also happens to be the 4^th most popular girls name.

The icing on the cake of this incredibly idiotic article is that it features in the ‘Science and Tech’ section of the Daily Mail website.

So what inspires this mini rant you ask; well who other than the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has been in the news today after Pope Benedict wrote an open letter to “help in the process of repentance, healing and renewal.” from the paedophilia revelations. This was done shortly after the head of the Catholic church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady apologised for his role in covering up the abuse allegations. All this comes across as a massive PR stunt by the Catholic Church to attempt to restore the public’s confidence in the archaic institution. If the Pope and his cronies really did regret the actions of its members then they might sack some of the people involved instead of protecting them, as in the case of Cardinal Bernard Law who was given a job in Rome after accusations of child abuse. He is wanted by a grand jury; perhaps the Church thinks it is above secular morality where people are expected to pay for their sins with time in jail. I don’t. 

This aside, the Catholic Church has a fundamental problem when it comes to trust because it is hard to trust an institution that, not only is built on a bed of lies, but that continues to lie in order to protect its perceived religious righteousness. Pope Benedict is well known for his blatant lies about contraception and aids and on the very day the Catholic Church is trying to make amends for raping children and covering it up a Catholic adoption charity wins the right to discriminate against same sex couples.

Sorry about the rape, the homophobia and the aids; Believe in Jesus!

Now whether you agree with same sex couples adopting children or not is not the issue I wish to raise here. Clearly the Catholic Church does not and has fought to support that opinion in court. What I do want to draw attention to is the lies; refusing to allow a couple to adopt on the basis of their sexuality is discrimination simple.

Not according to The Bishop of Leeds, Right Rev Arthur Roche, who said outside the court: “Our case has not been brought on an anti-gay agenda of any sort. We respect, and would not want to diminish, the dignity of any person.” But that’s exactly what they are doing! There is no other way of describing it; they are depriving same sex couples from having children on the basis of their sexuality and for no other reason. That is discrimination; that is an anti-gay agenda. Yet again a member of the church is blatantly lying, something isn’t so just because you say it is, although I realise this is the basis of faith. You can’t say you aren’t being homophobic while at the same time celebrating a victory in court that allows you to discriminate against homosexuals. You don’t get to say you respect the rights of all individuals when you are being prejudicial.

So the Catholic Church has lied about raping children, discriminating against homosexuals and contraception, thus condemning millions to die from aids, and they expect us to take their word for it when they say there is an omnipotent creator watching our every move and sorting us into heaven or hell. They better hope for their own sakes that they’re wrong.