Next read this article about why the ad was banned and the argument between Lane Bryant and ABC.
Lane Bryant Article
This ad is of a plus sized model doing a commercial for a lingerie company. This ad was banned from television because ABC claimed the ad was too "explicit." Do you think this ad is too explicit for television? How does this ad differ from the Victoria's Secret ads that are on tv all the time? Is Lane Bryant's argument a valid one? How does the banning of this ad convey how today's society portray's beauty?
by: Group 4 (Dragan Pantic, Jamyria Holmes, Jiayi Ren, Anam Rehman)
This ad is not too explicit at all. The only difference between Lane Bryant's ad and Victoria's Secret's ad is that Lane Bryant's has a full figured model. If anything, Victoria's Secret's ads are racier. The only reason that ABC would not air this commercial is because the public is not used to seeing confident plus sized women in lingerie. The tabloids tell women that they need to be thin to be beautiful, and Lane Bryant's ad is saying that women with curves are beautiful too. For some reason the people at ABC do not want to accept this, which pisses me off. Every woman is beautiful in her own way, curves or no curves. ABC has no right to deem curves inappropriate. They are basically telling half of the women in America that they are not gorgeous because they are not skinny. They are no better than the tabloids who influence people to diet like crazy just so they will be "beautiful". ABC does not deserve to be called a "family" network anymore because clearly they only care about those deemed "beautiful" enough to be on their channel. The perfect world that they are portraying through their shows and commercials does not exist. Their shows and ads will just put unrealistic expectations into the minds of America's youth, perhaps giving them self-esteem and confidence issues for the rest of their lives. I would love to see more ads like Lane Bryant's in the future because they are realistic and embrace real women.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the fact that ABC says there was too much cleavage in the commercial is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Big breasts are part of being a plus size model and with bigger breasts comes more cleavage. It's just that simple. It's not like the models are topless in the commercial. Cleavage is a natural thing, you just can't make a woman stop having cleavage unless you tape her boobs to the sides like a damn drag king, which these women are certainly not. At the top of the article, half of the Victoria's Secret models breasts are out. Just because the breasts of the Lane Bryant model are bigger does not mean that it is showing more. The Lane Bryant models are just as beautiful as the Victoria's Secret models, if not even more gorgeous because of the confidence they have. If we all looked like Gisele Bundchen, we sure as hell would be walking around in our bras and underwear, but the Lane Bryant models know they are beautiful and want to embrace the women that they are. The fact that ABC did not air the commercial is disgusting to me and I agree that they are telling plus sized women that they are not beautiful. But I do think ABC and FOX made a pretty good excuse of it being too racy for a family show, until FOX aired a Victoria's Secret commercial when "American Idol" was aired. Big companies just need to accept everyone and not discriminate. ABC and FOX want beauty so bad, but they turned it down right when it was right in front of their face. Doesn't that in turn make them ugly?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the news companies' arguments that this Lance Bryant ad is "too racy" is beyond infuriating especially when compared to Victoria Secret ads where models roll around on shag rugs and satin sheets saying "dazzle me". This exclusion of the Lane Bryant ad is saying that not only are skinny women more beautiful, but that full figured women who have things like breasts and hips and asses and curves in general are somehow obscene and uncouth. Banning full figured bodies from the television is perpetuating a cycle of belittling women based on the perception of beauty that the media has created. It used to be Ok for women to have curves, and in fact it used to be preferred, but Fox and ABC have deemed full figures unfit for primetime television. If this nation is striving to be about equality like it says it is, why is there still not equality in our media outlets, and this goes for all kinds of media related inequalities like race, or sexual orientation, or height, or hair color or whatever. I, as a not-stick-figured woman, would like to see more size diversity in the media, as well as diversity in general in the media. When one group is allowed to be excluded from something, like the media, that makes it acceptable to exclude other groups as well. Exclusion is like a gateway, once it's open, it is OPEN. But with the inclusion of full figured models in the media in ads like the Lane Bryant ad, there would be more room for inclusion of Asian models, and models of mixed ethnic background and Bi-Racial models, and short models, and then that inclusion leads to inclusion across the board in the media, which would to acceptance across the board and then everybody's happy, and feels beautiful and adeptly represents. So I can't find a good reason why the heads of Fox and ABC would exclude these full women and thereby lead to and allow more exclusion in the media perpetuating a cycle detrimental to the collective self confidence of women.
ReplyDeleteI find it really hard to believe that ABC didn't approve of this ad. There is nothing different between this and the Victoria Secret ads. She is just as beautiful as the Victoria Secret models. I don't know what was going through The ABC executive's mind when they rejected the ad. She has bigger breasts so there is going to be more cleavage. Why does that matter? Their reasons for not airing the ad are extremely flawed. There are no good reasons for not airing this ad. This kind of thing is the reason why people feel so bad about themselves. Women are never happen about their appearance regardless of how beautiful they are and it's because of decisions like this one. It's sickening.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this ad is too explicit for television, there are all kinds of scenes available everywhere and every time, which should have made this idea of "too explicit" something "old fashioned" for this kind of subject. It's hard for me to assume that ABC banned this commercial only because the woman is not thin as the Victoria Secret models are, because she is very beautiful and sexy, and as I first said, I also do not think it is too explicit, which makes me think that they probably had another reason to do it that was not published or disclosed to the public. However, if the reason for ABC has banned this commercial was really the model (who does not fit in the prototype of beauty created by society), I guess we should rethink our concept of beauty because we are part of the society and capable of changing this view, starting by do not accepting this kind of response (like the ABC's argument) as a justification for banning a commercial in which we see nothing more than what other lingerie brands do all the time.
ReplyDeleteThis ad is not too explicit for television at all. I do think however that ads such as Victoria's Secret and the Lane Bryant ads should not be featured during family programs such as American Idol and Dancing With the Stars. They are not racy but they could be for younger children while trying to watch a show with their family. I think that networks like ABC and Fox should just not accept either of the ads that way there is no discrimination against Lane Bryant's plus sized lingerie ad. If they don't air either of the ads then they can be sure to not cause this claim that they are judging based on the fact that the plus size models are too explicit. I do not agree with the fact that these networks denied the Lane Bryant ad because it is no different than the Victoria's Secret ad. We live in America and it is no secret that we aren't the skinniest nation. So it is unrealistic to say that half if not more than half of the women in America can relate more to the Lane Bryant model with her curves, than to the perfect, flawless, angelic-like Victoria Secret models. We have become a society that demands perfection, but the truth of it is that nobody can be perfect, not even these self proclaimed Victoria Secret angels.
ReplyDeleteThis add is in no way any more explicit than victoria's secret, axe, or any other kind of commercial that tries to persuade its audience through sexuality. The thing that is different however is the appearance of the woman in question. Compared to the skinny and petite victoria's secret models she is plus size which isnt why it was banned, but it was banned because of the size of her bust. While i do not agree that this is logical reasoning for having a commerical banned, my guess is the amount of bust shown by the woman is too much for what television deams acceptable. This is in no way any more sexual, hwever, than any other thing on tv whether its other ads or television shows. I mean the show Spartacus has naked woman in their shows but its is still deemed acceptable for cable.
ReplyDeleteABC and Fox are crazy.! First of all they're Family shows anyway or at least "supposed" to be so if being too "explicit" and "racy" is what they were worried about they shouldn't of showed Victoria's Secret ad either. That's when the issue comes up and their excuses become BULLSHIT. It is not right how they rejected the Lane Bryant ad. The women in the ad is very beautiful but because she has curves and breast its a problem? I guarantee if they would have aired this they would have got more publicity then ever and not in a bad way. More girls and women who are plus size or full figured would feel better about themselves not having to worry if they would be accepted in todays society. By them not airing it it's like a slap in the face for them. They are really delivering the wrong message and they call themselves "a family show" PLEASE!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that there is no valid reasoning behind the Lane Bryant ad being banned in France. Like Jay said, the women is that advertisement are equally as beautiful as women in Victoria's Secret advertisements. What I haven't decided yet is whether ABC, a family oriented station, has valid reasoning behind not running the advertisement. There are arguments for both. ABC is a family oriented station with many of their programs suitable for families. In this case, the company does have a right to not run the commercial, just like any other lingerie commercial. Parents may not find it suitable for their kids. On the other hand, ABC is not only family oriented. Shows like Grey's Anatomy or Modern Family tend to have more "not suitable for younger viewers" or "parental discretion is advised" humor or situations. In this case, I'm not so sure ABC has enough reasoning to not run the commercial. I've seen plenty of Victoria's Secret commercials on a variety of channels at variety of times. But it all depends on the average age of the viewer and the content in the show being watched. We cannot instantly criticize or become angry at ABC or any other family oriented network without the background information, details, and reasoning behind their decisions.
ReplyDeleteHow does this commercial differ from other? What makes this commercial banned, while others similar, are not? The point of a commercial is to be clear, persuasive and illustrate a product that one should buy by showing the product in an environment that depicts the product the best. Isn't that what this whole commercial is doing? The ad is showing confident, sexy women being scandalous with lingerie. How else would one persuade someone to buy lingerie? To say that this ad is taking it too far, by the way the women are shown, is completely wrong. So what if the models are not how society views an ideal model, isn't this ad more dramatic, and portrays more emphasis on the lingerie? I feel the persuasion in this advertisement is much stronger than the typical lingerie advertisement. It has more sex appeal, more danger, and more curiosity than what is shown everyday. These commercials show just as much as a bikini would show in the summer, so to say that it is inappropriate for children is not exactly true. However, maybe the language used or the tone used in this advertisement is what makes it explicit for a young audience. The ending states, "so sexy, so not what mom would wear," and I feel that is the most controversial part. Children are to look up to their mom, and when told to go against her, is what brings in the more adult audience. Do I still think this advertisement should be banned? Of course not, I still feel that it is not that "explicit." This commercial is what a lingerie commercial looks like, and that is what should be expected.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think this ad is too explicit. Except the plus sized model, there is no big difference compared with Victoria’s secret’s ad. If the plus sized model is the reason why ABC banned the ad, then I think it is definitely ABC’s loss. This ad is perfect. It challenges the public’s definition of beauty. The model in this ad shows the confidence a women should have no matter she has curves or not. Plus, compared with Dove Revolution, the line in this ad “mum said smile is the best make-up” also delivers a message of a new definition of beauty. Even though ABC is family oriented, the ad still can be run for the ad has some points that can be taught to the children. Such as being confident as what the model behaves in the ad. What reflects from this ad is that nowadays, the companies and media interfere too much on people’s viewing. They try to eliminate the ads which are against the mainstream. It is not good because just like what Mia said, the ads need more diversity. The audience wants to find the figure which is similar with them on TV. Such an ad is more persuasive
ReplyDeleteThis ad is in no way different from Victoria's Secret advertisements other than the size of the model. It's great that this company is trying to break the barrier of what's considered beautiful but its bad that the network blocked them. This ad is not any more explicit than most lingerie ads. Their argument that theyre discriminating against larger models is very valid. The network is clearly showing that they have a problem with larger models because they dont conform to the normal standards of "beauty"
ReplyDeleteFor me, this advertisement is no different than any other Victoria's Secret advertisement that is regularly shown on national television. The only difference is that in the Victoria's Secret commercials, the model is the "ideal" size. While in the Lane Bryant ad, she is a more curvy woman, a plus size model. From what I can see, there is no difference other than that in either of the commercials. Due to this fact, it is my belief that the Lane Bryant company has a fair argument with these national networks. There is no reason that they should run the Victoria's Secret ads, and not the Lane Bryant ones. This relates back to the ideal image that people in society have today of beauty. What one person may see as beautiful, another may not. The sad part is that a few people in the advertising business have decided what is beautiful and what is not as beautiful. So now what one person sees as beautiful takes over what everyone else thinks is beautiful, and construes what the public thinks is beautiful.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not find anything wrong with the Lane Bryant advertisement, but there seemed to be some controversy of whether or not ABC actually banned the ad from being run on the air. So let's assume that ABC did actually ban the advertisement and this was not just a fabricated stunt from Lane Bryant company to gain publicity. The only difference between this advertisement and any of Victoria's Secret advertisements is that Lane Bryant uses a more curvy woman than Victoria's Secret. So, for this ad to be banned from Fox or ABC just shows how discriminative the mass media is against plus sized women. This advertisement is definitely not too explicit for advertising. Society's image of beauty is unwavering. If the woman is anything but skinny, then she is not good enough for the public eye to see. That is, for the most part, the sad truth. However I admire Lane Bryant's ambition and I think this commercial was brilliantly done. Another question to pose is if society would be able to break out of this one-track mind of what's beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI feel that “plus-sized” models are sometimes discriminated against by the media and television networks because they don’t want to show a woman who they believe will not appeal to men or, in this case, other women who they are trying to sell their product to. This is an utter outrage. First of all, different men like different types of women and women have their preferences on whom they think is beautiful or not. Why is it up to a television network on whom is beautiful is not? Second, this model shows no more cleavage than the Victoria Secret models that we see on television 24/7. These agencies are using similar styles of selling (using models wearing lingerie) to sell their product. I just don’t understand why the television network doesn’t want to show the ad. It wasn’t offensive to me and probably every else who viewed it, so it baffles me why the ad wasn’t good enough to show on television.
ReplyDeleteconsider this ad is a good one. However, it's agains the society's standard for models , yet it conveys the public plus-sized girls can also be beautiful and sexy as models. Victoria's secret models are super skinny and some are even too skinny that are underweight. As far as i know, there are bunch of models are suffering malnutrition and which is very unhealthy. Unsurprisingly, this leads to a wrong attitude to the public. What's even worse, the media influence the audience a lot who see this. Especially teenagers who want to become models. They are crazy about losing weight and their bodies are tend to be more weak. However, what this video tries to tell its viewers that there's no difference between big girls and skinny girls. And plus-sized models should be appreciated as same as the skinny models.
ReplyDeleteThis advertisement is no more explicit than any Victoria's Secret ad; the woman presented in this ad is portrayed similar to any Victoria's secret model. This controversy is over the skinny vs. the plus-sized woman. ABC and FOX both hold double standards favoring the skinnier advertisements, regardless of claiming that the ad is too promiscuous or explicit for prime-time television. The ad is a good attempt at expanding the unfortunate cultural view that only skinny is beautiful; perhaps the cultural view is that all women are beautiful and the networks are receiving more funds from Victoria Secret? Money talks, and in this situation Victoria's Secret may be talking louder than Lane Bryant, at least to ABC.
ReplyDeleteTo me this commercial seems like a replica of a Victoria Secret commercial by the way the woman is in her lingerie. What's the difference if it's a bigger woman or a skinnier one? Either way both women show off their bodies in their lingerie. It seems as if television shows will only show commercials with skinny women, not overweight women. Both are beautiful, so why can't they both be shown? Showing overweight women shows off as being unhealthy; however, it shows that not every woman who's in a lingerie commercial has to be completely skinny and fit. It seems as if to be called beautiful a person must be skinny and fit. This bothers me so much because I believe that even if someone is overweight that doesn't make them any less beautiful than a skinny person. That commercial with the bigger woman should be able to be put on television. If the only reason why it can’t be on television is because she's not as skinny is a poor, ridiculous excuse.
ReplyDeleteBy my definition, both Victoria Secret Ads and Lane Bryant ads are racy, but one must ask why one is aired and the other one isn't? I think that the network's definition of racy and Lane Bryant's definition of racy are different. ABC's excuse that the Lane Bryant ad showed too much cleavage is just a facade covering up the fact that they just do not want to show plus sized models on their network. One could argue that this is because they are discriminating against plus sized women, and I would agree with this statement but also expand on this claim. Unfortunately, plus sized models are not as publicized as the ultra skinny models. Skinny models are shown so much in our society that people become desensitized to their impact and these Victoria Secret ads just become routine and expected. As a family station, ABC might be more concerned with the shock factor that their audience could experience after watching these commercials. Not necessarily because of the raciness of the publications, but because featuring plus sized models in advertising is sort of uncharted waters in our society today. While I think that the Lane Bryant advertisement is a good thing for our society because it is a step in the right direction in terms of featuring normal people modeling normal clothes and underwear, I do not blame ABC, a family station, for not airing the ad. It is a shame that there is a double standard present with skinny models and plus sized models. But people want to feel like the products they are buying, specifically the Victoria Secret underwear, make them look better than normal. And if people keep buying, ABC will run the ads that make Victoria Secret money and therefore, make ABC money.
ReplyDeleteThe cruel double standard that we have to live and deal with in this day in age is just unfair and ridiculous. On one end of the spectrum, we criticize companies for only showing super skinny, overly made up, photoshopped supermodels but then when a company like Lane Bryant comes around and uses voluptuous and plus size women in their ads, they get banned from tv. What is that trying to tell us as a society? Apparently nobody is allowed to be in commercials anymore. ABC says this one was banned because it was to "racy" but there has been plenty of victoria secret commercials with girls flaunting their bras and panties around and nobody says anything about it. It has just become commonplace to see it. Now im not saying either is good for society but if one exists the other should as well. Their should not be any difference between the two in the eyes of society even though i know that's not true.
ReplyDelete