This article explores what evidence the Committee of Advertising Practice (‘CAP’) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (‘BCAP’) used for their ‘Body Image in Advertising Review’ (the Review). It concludes that the evidence pool was not vast enough, and nor was the Review conducted over a sufficient period of time.
The Review lasted three years, running from the point at which CAP made an open call for evidence in October 2021, to the publication of a Final Statement on 10 October 2024. The Review was triggered by a recent increase in government-led assessments into body image issues, particularly in children. In March 2020, the Scottish Government’s Body Image Advisory Group published the results of their six-month review into the impact of body image concerns on children and young people’s mental health. In September 2020, a special report was published by the House of Commons cross-party group, the Women and Equalities Committee. Accordingly, CAP and BCAP wished to assess if the UK Advertising Codes (‘the Codes’) are effective in addressing body related harms that can arise from advertising.
In short, CAP and BCAP concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant amendment of the Codes. They also concluded that issues with negative body image fall beyond the scope of advertising regulation. However, as this article explores, the evidence-base was not vast enough for the regulatory bodies to attempt a conclusion for the Review, and the open-call for evidence should resume.
Any reference to ‘women’ and ‘men’ within this article is intended to be read as those who identify as such. It is important to note that the Final Statement did not set out how the regulatory bodies identified specific genders when reviewing advertisements. Nor did the Review investigate depictions of gender identities that do not fall into the male/female binary. Whilst gender identities are not recognisable from appearances - and the idea that they are is problematic - the fact that the Review did not consider non-binary identities inevitably renders it inadequate.
Regulatory bodies and frameworks
CAP are a self-regulatory committee who are responsible for creating, editing and enforcing the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (the CAP Code). The CAP Code is one of two UK Advertising Codes that govern the content and context of advertisements within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The second is BCAP, which regulates advertising and programme sponsorship credits on radio and television services licensed by Ofcom.
The application of the Codes is enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority (‘ASA’), the UK’s independent advertising regulator. CAP work in conjunction with ASA to ensure harmful content is not included in ads that are displayed within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Notably, CAP, are responsible for writing the Codes, whereas ASA are responsible for their enforcement.
What content within advertisements did the Review focus on?
The investigation examined the following three phenomena within advertisements that have appeared across the jurisdiction of England and Wales since 2021:
Digitally altered images in advertising and labelling;
The depiction of muscularity in advertising; and
The depiction of women from minority ethnic backgrounds and the potential for creating ‘new and unattainable body image ideals.’
Review of the evidence used and summaries drawn
Evidence considered regarding digitally altered images
Initially, CAP and BCAP established what techniques were being used to digitally alter images in ads, so as to ascertain the extent to which body parts can be modified. A roundtable discussion was organised in June 2023, which brought together policy makers, academics, media platforms and the advertising industry. The report on CAP and BCAP’s findings from this roundtable can be found in the 'Review Update: Digitally Altered Images’ (published in November 2023).
Youth perspectives on digitally altered images
Children and young people were identified at the June 2023 roundtable as a group that are particularly impressionable. As such, CAP and BCAP convened an additional roundtable in October 2023 to gather views from young people on digitally altered images and body image harms that arise from social media in particular.
The youth roundtable was facilitated by Girlguiding and Childnet. However, gathering evidence from only two institutions is limiting. This is especially so when one of these institutions is renowned for being ethnically and culturally homogeneous. Girlguiding’s own investigations in 2020 into its culture found that:
‘Most participants [...] said that the whole organisation, as a workplace and wider membership, is mostly white, middle class and perceived as predominantly Christian’ (‘Diversity and Inclusion Audit Report’). Accordingly, more institutions should have been consulted to ensure a proper representation of the population within the evidence base.
Further, only six young individuals were invited to share their experiences at the roundtable: a number that is self-evidently too small to base an important decision upon. Furthermore, the six individuals who shared their opinion were aged between 14-17. It is common knowledge that even children under the age of 10 have access to social media and/or, at the very least, are exposed to advertisements on television and care givers’ devices. Therefore, involving the views of young children across a wide age-range is essential to reach a sufficient conclusion.
Seemingly, then, BCAP and CAP did not cast their net wide enough when gathering evidence. As such, their conclusion on digitally altered images may not be correct: ‘there appears to be little evidence at present that demonstrates the specific impact of advertising.’
Additional results of the youth roundtable regarding digitally altered images
BCAP and CAP did note that the six 14–17-year-olds were ‘highly aware of, and adept at describing, the body image related impact on them.’ The children also spoke about the longer-term impact of exposure to ads that have been digitally modified.
However, the young people admitted that they felt drawn to potentially edited content. These comments influenced BCAP and CAP to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to decipher if the content of advertisements were to blame for body image difficulties.
Considerations on a labelling requirement for digitally altered images
BCAP and CAP could not identify a basis upon which to introduce a mandatory labelling requirement for ads containing digitally altered images. The decision was influenced by growing evidence on the ineffectiveness of labelling (as evaluated in the Digital Alteration Update Statement). However, it also derived from stakeholders highlighting that unintended consequences may arise from regulating digitally altered images. Stakeholders suggested that a labelling requirement might cause ‘influencers’ to revert to cosmetic interventions, which could result in ‘followers’ to do the same.
Nevertheless, it must be the case that un-labelled digitally altered images contribute to a desire in consumers to undergo cosmetic surgery. Consumers are inevitably tricked into thinking that digitally altered images are accurate. Yet the driving force behind the demand for cosmetic procedures was not explored in the Review. The regulatory bodies did not reflect upon finding a balance between the inevitable impact of un-labelled images, and the risk of changing the status quo by introducing a labelling requirement. Accordingly, it seems that the regulatory bodies adopted the concerns of the stakeholders without proper consideration and have kicked the can down the road.
Evidence considered regarding depictions of muscularity
CAP and BCAP explored whether advertising contributed to a desire to conform to muscularity ‘ideals’ amongst men and boys. The Final Statement did not specify how the Review identified genders. Nor was there information on whether genders that fall outside of the male/female binary were considered during the Review.
For evidence about depictions of muscularity, the Review considered the effect of images that show non-muscular physiques and ‘idealised’ male body portrayals (although ‘idealised’ was not defined). Academics across disciplines were called in to review the evidence. Further, BCAP and CAP carried out content analysis of a random sample source from paid-for ads on Meta and TikTok. The dataset for the random sample was captured over a one-week period between November and December 2023.
BCAP and CAP’s summary on depictions of muscularity
Overall, as with digitally edited content, BCAP and CAP concluded that the evidence base was still developing. This was particularly so for research into the impact of adverts per se, as opposed to general media influence.
However, some academics reached various conclusions during the review. Bare-chested and muscular bodies created ‘significantly lower body satisfaction in comparison to clothed fashion images.’ Importantly, it was found that muscularity norms had influences from beyond advertising. For example, academics noted that some motivations behind the desire to have a muscular physique are not driven entirely by body image concerns, but by a wish to assert masculinity and strength.
The conclusion that desires for particular body types can be influenced by cultural phenomena outside of advertising drove BCAP and CAP to conclude that the impact of adverts featuring stereotypical muscular models on consumers is currently inconclusive. As such, BCAP and CAP stated they could not be sure that the correlation between depictions of muscularity in advertisements and body-image difficulties fell within the scope of their regulatory duties.
Fundamentally, according to BCAP and CAP, the existing rules on social responsibility and gender stereotyping are sufficient to address concerns around depictions of muscularity in ads. The former rule prohibits ads that may encourage socially irresponsible behaviour, by allowing ASA to take action against unsafe, irresponsible or illegal acts being depicted, condoned or encouraged. The latter rule prohibits depictions of gendered stereotypes.
Whilst the rule against gendered stereotyping sounds like it would be enough to tackle depictions of exaggerated, ‘mould-like’ ideas of ‘male’ and ‘female’ bodies, it is arguably not. The rule still permits depictions of ‘glamorous, attractive, successful, aspirational or healthy people or lifestyles.’ Accordingly, the rule does not address unattainable body images. Instead, the rule seems to exist to prevent discrimination against non-binary gender identities. Therefore, whilst this rule is essential for helping gender diversity to be at least considered in advertisements, it is probably not enough to tackle negative body-image perceptions in consumers (if it was found that body-image concerns do actually fall in the scope of advertising regulations).
Evidence for depictions of women from minority ethnic backgrounds
BCAP and CAP reviewed pre-existing research and conducted analysis of content from a random sample of ads. Importantly, the Final Statement acknowledges that body image concerns for women of minority ethnic backgrounds include issues such as colourism and hair discrimination. However, the regulatory bodies emphasised that this particular review focusses on whether portrayals of a particular body type could create potential body image related harms.
Review of academic literature on body image perceptions in ethnic minority women
Fundamentally, the Review found that the existing mass of research on female body image focuses on white women, or uses a ‘White’ lens (Lowry et al (2021), Harriger et al (2023). As such, the analysis and conclusions on this matter are without an understanding or acknowledgment of the fact that women from ethnic minority groups may possess body image ideas that are specific to their culture and identity. Accordingly, BCAP and CAP concluded that the research on the impact of adverts on body image amongst ethnic minority women is still emerging in regard to the UK population.
Analysis of the content of a random sample of ads
The Review found that more ethnically diverse models are being depicted in ads. However, the Review also noted ethnically diverse ‘women’ are frequently being represented as having slim waists, thicker thighs and fuller bottoms (‘slim-thick’) (McComb & Mills (2021)). Accordingly, BCAP and CAP believe a new, unattainable body-shape ideal is at risk of being created.
Additionally, the Final Statement acknowledges that the ‘slim thick’ ideal is ‘underpinned by contentions about the appropriation of fuller body types conventionally attributed to women from particular minority ethnic backgrounds.’ It is a positive that the regulatory bodies have at least identified that this new body-shape ideal (‘slim-thick’) not only has the potential to create harm through morphing body image satisfaction, it has the power to stoke painful race relations and feelings of injustice.
BCAP and CAP’s summary on depictions of women from minority ethnic backgrounds
As with digitally altered images and the depiction of muscularity, the regulatory bodies found that evidence on depictions of women from minority ethnic backgrounds is still emerging, and the Review into this topic is inconclusive. Similarly, BCAP and CAP believe that existing protections within the Codes (namely the gender stereotype and social responsibility rules) are enough to trigger sufficient enforcement action from ASA if depictions of women from minority ethnic backgrounds are harmful.
BCAP and CAP’s overall evaluation
In sum, BCAP and CAP do not consider there is a case, at present, to justify new regulatory interventions in any of the three areas examined. The conclusion was overwhelmingly driven by: a lack of evidence that had been gathered for the review, the notion that sufficient safeguards are currently in place, and the idea that further interference by regulatory bodies may result in negative consequences (such as an increase in young people seeking surgical procedures).
Whilst the Review is significant, it arguably marks nothing more than a step towards restricting unattainable beauty standards within adverts. It is respectfully submitted that the evidence of six teenagers is a manifestly inadequate basis upon which to establish a very important decision that has the power to protect future generations.
Where does this leave consumers?
The regulatory bodies promise in the Final Statement to continue examining the three areas in question. They propose to do so by sharing their findings from the Review with the advertising industry.
Whilst feeding back to the industry will evidently be helpful, the Review should remain open to gather more primary material (such as first-hand opinions from individuals across communities). Gathering more primary material in advance would produce a sturdier conclusion upon which decisions could actually be made.
Notably, BCAP and CAP do promise to monitor the developing evidence base for the three areas in the Review. They have also committed themselves to monitoring the use of Artificial Intelligence in advertising, and AI’s potential to perpetuate harmful body image ideals. Such promises serve as indicators that the regulatory bodies themselves believe that more time and effort should be dedicated to investigating the correlation between adverts and body image perceptions.
Whilst the promise to consider evidence in the future is positive, BCAP and CAP should add more categories to evaluate. A social group that immediately springs to mind - which didn’t seem to be considered in the Review - is the depiction of non-binary, bi-gender, a-gender, genderfluid or genderqueer identities. Whilst it is important to note that gender identity is not recognisable from appearances, BCAP and CAP have a duty to ensure the Codes are not inadvertently permitting for the depiction of particular demographic in a certain light which could harm the development or wellbeing of that social group.
However, at present, BCAP and CAP consider that the existing general rules on misleading advertising and social responsibility in the Codes are sufficient. They believe this to be the case as the ASA can readily take action against ads that are misleading or irresponsible.
What are the UK Advertising Codes and are they sufficient?
The Codes cannot impose requirements or quotas to include a range of body types in ads. It is also impossible under the Codes to prohibit glamorous, attractive, successful, aspirational or healthy people or lifestyles within ads. The reason: the fear of infringing upon freedom of commercial expression. Therefore, the current basis upon which ASA can act is if the content and/or the context of ads are irresponsible or are likely to mislead.
It is important to note that, in the past, ASA has acted on the basis of irresponsible advertising. For example, in 2019, ASA investigated a number of social media ads, including influencer marketing, which promoted weight control products. Within this investigation, ASA found that the ads promoted body images and lifestyles which created an impression that it was necessary or advisable for individuals who were already slim to use the appetite suppressants advertised. ASA also considered that the influencers’ waists in the ads had been digitally altered to look artificially thin and were not representative of their real body shapes, which was particularly irresponsible in the context of the ads. ASA concluded that the ads were irresponsible and therefore banned them (Protein Revolution Ltd, BoomBod Ltd).
Commentary on the Review
The difficulty with the current system upon which ads are monitored, is that by the time irresponsible or misleading content has come to the attention of ASA, and the material has been assessed, the content has potentially influenced millions of individuals already. As such, the existing regulatory framework cannot be properly tackling a desire within society to achieve unattainable body types. Further, it cannot possibly be protecting children from false ideals. By the time that ASA acts, some damage has inevitably occurred.
CAP has published various advice pieces (linked below) that guide companies on appropriate content within adverts. However, ‘advice’ is not enforceable by regulatory bodies. As such, these pieces are somewhat redundant.
Accordingly, it is hoped that CAP and BCAP reach an amended conclusion to the Body Image in Advertising Review in the not-too distant future.
Comments