Do Ultra Thin Models Sell More Clothes?

September 4th, 2008

It’s an important and disturbing question. There have been several studies done that show the negative effect of all these anorexic models on women’s self-esteem. But do those super skinny models actually sell more clothes?

Heather Strang at RetailDesignDiva.com has a fascinating article on the subject. Here’s a sample:

Jeremy Kees, a business professor at Villanova had this quote to share: “The really interesting result we’re seeing across multiple studies is that these thin models make women feel bad, but they like it. They have higher evaluation of the brands. With the more regular-size models, they don’t feel bad. Their body image doesn’t change. But in terms of evaluations of the brands, those are actually lower.”

Personally, I don’t think Jeremy knows what he’s talking about, but it’s worth exploring. Why would something that makes us feel bad also motivate us to buy? We may need a panel of psychologists to figure this one out. Ultimately, though it puts retailers in a position where they can’t win.

I’d like to learn more about the study that found women have a “higher evaluation” of brands that use these thin models. I’m not saying I disagree, but I’d like more details. Since the top fashion houses are the biggest offenders with these size negative 2 models, perhaps women associate this look with high-end designer clothing. I don’t know.

What do you think?

In Marketing to Women

Add Your Comments

Comments (7)

Jamie Sanford
September 4th, 2008
11:00 am

I don’t particularly find ads with ultra-thin models appealing. I am definitely drawn more to ads featuring models with some hips and breasts. I don’t expect them to look normal, no fashion house is going to hire a size 8 girl to promote clothes that aren’t manufactured only to size 12 or 14. However, why show the clothes on a model that looks really nothing like a normal woman? My expectations aren’t that high to begin with, but the models could at least look more like women than pre-pubescent boys.
Jamie Sanford
September 4th, 2008
11:00 am

My apologies- ARE manufactured only to size 12 or 14.
Carolyn
September 4th, 2008
2:02 pm

I think you’re on to something with the biggest offenders being the high-end design houses. On the other side of the scale (pun intended), the “big girl” section of the department store has traditionally been filled with low quality, unfashionable clothes made out of cheap polyester. The association between bigger models and crappy quality may not be accurate, but it’s already in our heads.
Linda Bustos
September 5th, 2008
12:05 am

I thin-k you hit the nail on the head with association with higher fashion. Thinner model means more prestigious brand/store. There’s high fashion, “runway” models, “local” models (department store catalogs, for example), men’s magazine models, and they all have different looks and bodies. Runway models don’t sell lingerie, local and men’s mag models don’t sell Prada.

Personally I think that’s messed up, but if people realized how much of their opinions and preferences have been shaped by culture - and we have the nerve to make fun of cultures (past and present) that favor different traits like the Incas who liked cross-eyed gals with big noses. The young girls would wear a headband with a bead hanging in the middle, so they would stare at the bead and it would help them go cross-eyed.

That kinda girl would have sold a lot of maize and cacao, a waif would not!
Mark Silver
September 6th, 2008
8:54 am

The problem with polls and studies being done about “how women react” is that there often seems to be an underlying assumption that it’s somehow set in stone, that women are somehow genetically programmed to react to these starvation victims.

The truth is exactly what @Linda Bustos says: that which women’s bodily shapes are considered attractive is culturally-based, and has changed dramatically just since the 1950’s, and even more if you look back hundreds of years.

By only focusing on the size of the model, you leave out entirely the entire creative range of expression of how retailers could speak to/with women.

When retailers point to simple-minded studies like that, they are abdicating responsibility for the culture they are helping to shape with their millions of dollars in marketing. I don’t believe hiding behind “well, that’s what women want, what can we do?” relieves them of the responsibility to find ways to speak to women without contributing to the alarming level of eating disorders and other health problems, such as binge dieting, that their models have helped to create.

Can you tell I feel strongly about this?
Donovan Glass
September 11th, 2008
2:18 am

Being only 26, I was very much so attracted to the skinny “pre-pubescent boy” type body. Then as I got older I formed my own opinions about wanting curvier women, purely because of what I felt when I was with them.

It would be interesting to see if women buy more clothes from skinnier models simply because they subconsciously aspire to the perceived lifestyle (glam, prestige, rich men, value in others eyes). My theory is that “normal” looking models might be too close to home and therefore, subconsciously women aren’t jealous of their perceived lifestyle. Of course all of this is based on perception, and obviously is not the TRUE reality, but when is good marketing about fact and logic anyway.
tinu
September 15th, 2008
7:21 pm

The reason the best thing on TV is Mad Men is because the sexiest women on there are real sizes. I don’t think they sell more clothes, but then I’m from a culture where healthy sized women are adored. It seems like you can sell more clothes to people if they fit, and that it can be done without promoting obesity.

If ultra-thin models sell more clothes, there are so many neighboring industries complicit in this deception that it’s not even funny.