The Committee of Advertising Practice ("CAP") and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice ("BCAP") (the "Regulators") have published their final statement following their review on body image in advertising. Launched in 2021, the review's call for evidence (which we have previously written about), focused on three policy areas:
- digitally altered images in advertising and labelling;
- depiction of muscularity in advertising; and
- depiction of women from minority ethnic backgrounds and the potential for creating new and unattainable body image ideals. Since then, an update statement on digitally altered images in advertising (which we have previously summarised), and an interim statement in November 2022 have been published.
The final statement follows evidence gathering such as youth roundtables, engagement with academics and content analysis of samples from ads on Meta and TikTok.
No substantive change to existing rules or guidance was recommended by the Regulators. However, they will continue to monitor new evidence and issues on advertising and body image, alongside a reminder that the ASA has a number of rules it can apply to take action against misleading, irresponsible and harmful ads in this context.
Digitally altered images in advertising
Based on its findings, the final statement affirms the Regulators' view that there is no persuasive case to introduce a labelling requirement for digitally altered images in advertising:
- Concerns about altered images prevails on social media generally and extends beyond the advertising context. Accordingly, the specific impact of altered images in relating to advertising is not sufficiently clear.
- A requirement to label body parts that have been digitally altered could have an inadvertent impact on viewers of images.
- A ban on editing techniques could be disproportionate, as those techniques are also unlikely to perpetuate negative body image perceptions.
- Labelling or banning digitally altered images may lead to influencers feeling pressure to undergo cosmetic interventions and negatively impact on their mental wellbeing, which could also impact on viewers and followers.
The Regulators also re-emphasise that the ASA can apply existing rules on misleading advertising and social responsibility against ads featuring digitally altered images.
Depictions of muscularity
The Regulators consider that there is insufficient evidence showing the impact of advertising, differentiating from the impact of media influence generally on this issue. Accordingly, there is not a persuasive case to introduce new measures to intervene in this area.
Again, where appropriate, the general Code rule on social responsibility and the gender stereotyping rule can be applied where issues regarding irresponsible portrayal of, or pressure to conform to, an idealised gender-stereotypical body shape or physical features arise.
Depiction of women from minority ethnic backgrounds and the potential for creating new and unattainable body image ideals
Again, the conclusion on this issue is that there is insufficient evidence as to the impact of advertising, differentiating from the impact of media more generally.
The content analysis indicated that there were no obvious patterns in particular body types attributed to specific ethnic minority groups within the sample, though it was acknowledged that the results would vary depending on a variety of factors.
Again, the review notes the application of the social responsibility rule and the gender stereotype rule against potentially irresponsible and harmful depictions.
Continuing review
Whilst no changes are proposed to existing rules to deal with the issues considered, the Regulators will continue to monitor developing evidence as well as on new issues that emerge, such as the use of Artificial Intelligence in advertising and its potential to create harmful body image ideals.