The ethics of sexualised images in marketing communications

Images evoke fantasy, aspiration and desire but also rejection, shame and self-criticism. For Borgerson and Schroeder (2005), sexualised images in marketing materials perpetuate certain social and cultural norms that reinforce power relations and inequalities. They identify four conventions used in sexual and sexualised advertising that reinforce historical, cultural and social practices of inequality. Each of these is reviewed below.

Face-ism

Face-ism describes the way marketing messages systematically show men with more prominent faces than women. Men usually occupy the dominant position and women the subservient or submissive. Men are usually depicted as taller (relative size being an index of power) or occupy the centre of the image. Women tend to be shown in a peripheral position (often caressing the man or being cradled by him). In other words, there is a ‘ritualisation of subordination’ (Goffman, 1976) of the female to the male and the feminine to the masculine in a lot of marketing materials.

Idealisation

Idealisation concerns the way marketing communications routinely depict ideal-type bodies in their messaging. Ideals that few people can ever achieve but can nonetheless be influenced by, often in a negative way. Of course, such images hide the long and often painful production processes involved in their creation: whether that be the body management practices used by the models to maintain their look (such as surgeries, restrictive diets and exercise regimes), the technologies employed to get the perfect image (such as airbrushing and image manipulation), or the industry practices used to transform these carefully constructed images to appear ‘natural’.

Exoticisation

Exoticisation refers to the process of creating differences, otherness, or the exotic in ways that call attention to certain identity markers such as skin colour, dress or appearance. Through these practices, cultural stereotypes are perpetuated and reinforced. As Borgerson and Schroeder (2005, p. 269) argue: ‘Much of the ideological power of the representations lies in their almost infinite repetition – similar images are presented over and over again’. This limits diversity and leads to limited and stereotyped understandings of cultural differences.

Exclusion

Exclusion refers to how certain types of people (the poor, marginalised or under-represented minorities) are typically left out of marketing communications, creating an idealised and aspirational world that fails to reflect the diversity of real life. There is still a predominance of white, Western bodies in mainstream marketing communications. Where diversity is present, it is often intentional, to draw attention to it (as in the Benetton campaign discussed earlier). In other words, diversity becomes an appeal rather than a reflection of society.

Borgerson and Schroeder’s conclusion is that marketing communications are complicit in wider ‘circuits of culture’ that perpetuate certain inequalities, patriarchal society and the objectification of the body and whiteness.

In the following activity, you will test these ideas for yourself.