Dear Lovable,
Yesterday I wrote about your ad campaign featuring Jennifer Hawkins. I hope you read the p
iece. If you missed it, and you’re on the home page, scroll down a little and you’ll find it (it’s got lots of pictures of Jennifer Hawkins looking thin and sexy in bra and knickers and there’s a video too in which she’s getting up close and personal with an icecream and cavorting with a slice of watermelon).
Your company claims to care about body image. You claim to want to change the culture. You claim to produce intimate wear which doesn’t objectify women. You are even sponsoring Body Image Awareness Week which is on now. And you support a prominent eating disorder charity.
So I think you should read this comment, from Joni, a young woman from Sydney. She posted it on my site last night. She says your campaign makes her feel horrible. She says it tears at her self-esteem. She says she hates your ads more than any other ads.
I reckon you might want to revise your approach. Perhaps you’d like to respond to Joni and my other readers? We’d like to know how you can justify an approach which flies in the face of your stated goals.
Regards,
MTR
Available now
Now in its FOURTH printing!
September 9th, 2010 at 8:34 am
But, but but Loveable have stated they care about body image and they claim they care about how women are constantly reduced to dehumanised beings. Look at how Loveable are taking great care to only publish images of women which conform to what our male supremacist society deems are ‘suitably attractive to the male gaze.’
Oh what do you mean Loveable are pornifying women – just because Loveable uses pornified references when printing photos of stick thin women who bear no relation whatsoever to the numerous diverse real women doesn’t mean Loveable doesn’t care.
Of course Loveable cares – they care about profit first second and last and do not care one iota about women or the fact companies such as Loveable are ensuring that women such as Joni are being subjected daily to mythical male-centric fantasies of what and how women are supposed to look like.
Doubtless Loveable will claim ‘but we are not responsible for women’s eating disorders we are simply in the business of making money and by the way, this means we have the right to exploit women in the name of profit.
Oh and by the way Loveable are not dehumanising men or reducing men to disposable sexual service stations – now that would be a violation of men’s rights would it not? Whereas women – well women are not human are they? They are just objects to be exploited by companies such as Loveable.
Loveable we don’t believe you – you are telling lies but you are stupid enough to think women will fall for your lies. Well I have news for you ‘we will not be fooled.’
September 9th, 2010 at 9:40 am
What Jennifer said.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:59 am
[...] has written a letter to Lovable, Lovable, please read this, asking how they can claim to care about body image issues while producing ad campaigns that fly in [...]
September 9th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Someone posted on Collective Shout that they’ve received a response, here it is:
“Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns over the Current Lovable Television campaign.
The creative was not developed to offend or suggest “soft porn” as you describe, but use Lovable’s cheeky tone of voice to demonstrate the new Colour names for our advertised product via fun Props that remind the viewer of Summer, Lemon sorbet, Blueberry milkshake etc.
This was the intention of the creative agency , the Lovable team and our brand ambassador. Lovable sell’s products to Women only and hence the advertisement has been placed in shows and Magazines targeting women.
The Campaign has been received well in general by our consumers, but we understand that lingerie advertising does indeed cause issues, whether viewed on Billboards or Television. The Rating that Lovable was given by Commercials Advice Pty Ltd (CAD) commonly used for rating Television commercials was a G Rating.
Your complaint will be forwarded to the relevant parties involved though and thank for voicing your opinion.”
Really dodges the issue in my view!
September 9th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
I don’t really understand how the organisation who Loveable sponsor can continue to accept their sponsorship when they are such a poor example.
September 9th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
What a joke of a response from the company (and they can’t even write grammatically).
September 9th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Well said Erin!
Lovable’s response is just pathetic. They talk about how they have not intended to have a soft porn effect and talk about blueberry milkshakes to welcome the summer.
Yes Lovable, that’s *so* believable when you’ve got jen hawkins licking an ice cream with the white liquid dribbling down her arms and sucking her finger – no, no , surely this has got NOTHING to do with porn.
Women are repeatedly taught their self worth is measured by how sexually desirable they are to men. How are you challenging these messages? Your ad with Hawkins actually goes A LOT FURTHER in contributing to sexualising women in this way than MOST ads in general.
You claim to want to help women’s self esteem and all you did was stick in a ONE model who is a size 12 WITH DOUBLE D BREASTS?! Well bloody well done! I bet that was hard.
Nothing but a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.
September 9th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Lovable, you seriously cannot believe that women are that stupid. Well…judging by your past treatment of women and your response posted above, maybe you can. I’ve got news for you Lovable. We. Do. Not. Believe. You. We are smart. We know how advertising works. We are not as gullible as you think. Please stop pretending that we are. Your advertising and advertising just like it is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the poor self esteem and eating disorders suffered by women. Let’s cut the crap. We don’t want to see stick thin models with huge boobs on TV! We don’t want to conform to the image of the ‘ideal woman’. Some of us believe that what is in our hearts and our minds is more important that how we appear to men and appeal to them on a sexual level. Are you listening???
September 10th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Dear Lovable,
I am a 23 year old woman and am a fan of your product, as I am of Jennifer Hawkins. However I was disappointed to see some of your products in a myer catalogue a couple of weeks ago, I was disappointed because I liked the products advertised, however out of principal I have decided to not purchase any of the products.
I am a size 6 and and I have high self esteem, so it is not the body shape of the advertistment I dislike. I don’t want to buy products that will in anyway down play my intelligence and promote myself as a female, as a stupid sexual object, as JH is portrayed particulalry in the photograph with her and an ice cream.
I understand as your product is underware, bodies need to be shown and it would be in your best interest to show ‘attractive’ and ‘healthy’ looking models, but covered in oil and in pornographic poses as your lastest campaign shows is offencsve to myself and I will be boycotting your product and encouraging others to also until your advertising campaigns match the culture of a healthy body immage that you are trying to obtain.
Regards
I then got the standard response about fun summer colours etc…
Thankyou for your response.
It is hard to see the symbolism representing the fun colours of summer behind all of the sexual imagery, infact it is really hard to focus on the underware at all. Perhaps it is time to consider what kind of messages lovable wants to send to consumers, that of a healthy body image seems to be the moral option in my opinion, yet it seems you have gone for the all original sex sells.
I find it hard to believe that this campaign has been accepted well, clearly it has received a lot of complaints due to your stock standard response to my initial complaint.
Basically advertising like this is just crap. It gives girls eating disorders, encourages them to be sexual at a young age, and portrays woman poorly as sexual objects which can lead to events like rape and prostitution. It gets me angry because I know I am worth so much more than that, and I shouldn’t have to fight for womans rights in the year 2010. If this kind of advertising is acceptable now wonder what will be ok when I have children of my own? Perhaps a real penis will have replaced that icecream? I hope not!
September 12th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
I really hate the loveable campaign, but feel the need to remind people that while lots of advertising is unhelpful, it doesn’t CAUSE eating disorders. They are complex beasts, and recovery is not helped by such images, but to say that they are caused by these campaigns actually demeans those of us suffering from them and seeking to recover.
My ED has very little to do with body image, and a whole lot to do with grasping for control and as a maladaptive way to quell all consuming anxiety, Would I rather not see sexualised images like this that are inappropriate and demeaning? You bet. Would that mean that my ED would never have started or would just go away? Not on your life!
A really helpful blog that discusses ED is: ed-bites,blogspot.com
September 13th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
[...] absolutely agreed with my feelings) but after I saw the reaction Melinda Tankard Reist got after writing to Lovable about their latest Jennifer Hawkins ad campaign, I felt encouraged to do the [...]
September 15th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
[...] “This ad tears at my self-esteem”: Lovable please read this | Melinda Tankard Reist [...]
September 15th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I’m HORRIFIED!!!!! This Ad in question looks more like the model is a prostitute looking for business, than an ad for underwear. What’s worse is it is played at all times of the day. My 8 year old son saw it and was horrified too. He thought the girl in her underwear for the whole world to see was stupid or crazy!
“Why does she want everyone to see her in her undies, is she nuts or stupid or something?”
I had to turn the tv off. It was 8am and watching Sunrise. My son said he had seen it before on channel 7 while watching a kids movie.
I DON’T WANT MY YOUNG SON TO WATCH THIS DISGUSTING SORT OF IMAGERY!
It’s not even subtle. A woman’s worth is not determined by how she looks in her underwear, and for those of you who think it is, have watched and witnessed too many of these types of ads and images.
By the way, I never noticed that the model was wearing different underwear, and was advertising them. It just looked like she’s begging for approval and validation.
September 15th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
And to Lovable, If you think you are trying to appeal to and target women with your most derogatory Ad campaign, I’d like to let you know I will NEVER buy lovable products again. You are not lovable.
September 15th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
[...] “This ad tears at my self esteem”: Lovable, please read this [...]
September 15th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Amazing that an ad for a product that women wear is actually aimed at the gratification of men.
September 15th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Jennifer Hawkins was the wrong choice of model for the message lovables was apparently trying to portray. That is if they are being honest? Because it looks like they are advertising Penthouse or playboy. This ad is cheap and nasty.
September 17th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Why have you taken the comments off that don’t agree with your point of view?
Not entirely fair and reasonable.
September 18th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
I haven’t. There are many comments on all my posts on Lovable which disagree with me.
September 24th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
hi!,I like yourwritting so much! share we chat more about your review on MSN? Looking forward to see you.
October 26th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
The ad has crossed the line & is offensive