The thing that we often come across in marketing, specifically commercials, is Digital Photo Manipulations (DPM) — although it is now more well-known as “photoshopping”. Fashion magazines, in particular, are known to frequently doctor photographs. As an avid follower of ANTM (America’s Next Top Model), I have always been very aware that a promotional picture almost always requires long processes of digital manipulation. Normally, they would just adjust the colours so that the pictures turn out nice and eye-catching. However, some magazines go a billion steps further and actually distort the shapes of the face and the body of a model. It is almost like a temporary, painless plastic surgery.

Ps: PhotoShop or Plastic Surgery?

The use of DPM has always been a controversial issue. Some people love it and some people despise it. There are pros and cons in using DPM to market a product. On one hand, some customers might like it, since this act of fakery actually makes pictures look more attractive and interesting. However, on the other hand, other customers absolutely hate these deceptive pictures.

The question is, “Where do we draw the line?” At what point does DPM become an ethical marketing issue? We need to ask ourselves two questions to answer that one.

First of all, does photoshopping count as false advertising? Yes and no. It really depends on what product is advertised. For example, if Dove put an ad in a magazine, claiming that its soap can make a woman’s skin glow like in the promoting picture while in fact, the picture is photoshopped to give the woman a glow, it is false advertising, especially if Dove does not put up a disclosure.

An example of “glowing skin” attained through PhotoShop.

Similarly, if Tiffany & Co. somehow decides to advertise a line of bracelet and they manipulate its shape on the print ad, it is also false advertising. The bottom line is, if a brand gives a false impression of by misrepresenting its goods/services/commercial activity, it is false advertising, and false advertising is unethical in marketing. Otherwise, it can still be considered ethical.

Second, how does DPM affect the society? Some photoshopped promotion pictures can be considered pretty “harmless”. However, there are some that teach the wrong values. The most controversial issue of all is “thinnification”. A good recent example is the poster of The Heat, a movie featuring Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy, where its designer photoshopped approximately 30lbs off McCarthy’s face.

“Thinnification”s such as this teach women the wrong value that being large is not beautiful, and that is unethical.

Deceptive perception of “Perfect”.

Similarly, other advertisements have distorted the social definition of “beauty”.

So here is the line: DPM is an ethical marketing issue if it is used as a tool to falsely advertise and promote unethical messages.