When then Minister for Youth and Sport Kate Ellis launched the National Body Image Advisory Group, she said there had been too much talk, too much blame and “zero action”
“We decided we actually wanted results and took the pragmatic approach”, Ellis said. “Today I am calling on industry professionals to move beyond the ‘business as usual’ approach and take real action to promote positive body image.”
Now Mia Freedman, the woman Ellis appointed chair, has admitted she was “wrong” to think the voluntary code of conduct – the centrepiece of the Group’s endeavours and launched with much fanfare – would work. In a recent blog post titled “I was wrong”, she admits what many of us said at the time: a code with no teeth was doomed to fail. Freedman wrote:
The code was formally introduced by the government in June 2010….And then what happened? Nothing…NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The Body Image Code of Conduct has been given the fashionable middle finger by those it was aimed at.
So much for results. While it is commendable that Freedman has admitted her mea culpa, if the head of any other Government-appointed body had admitted to such a costly error, it would be big news. But Freedman’s admission seemed to have attracted little public attention.
The Report of the National Advisory Group on Body Image, released a year ago, announced new initiatives to address negative body image in young people. The aim was to bring the beauty, fashion and advertising industries to the table, to get them on board in a ‘partnership’ to address the growing problem of body image dissatisfaction.
The Code of Conduct provided a list of “best practice principles to guide professionals in the media, advertising and fashion industries about body image”.
The initiatives were described at the time as a “world first” (even though they weren’t really – and other countries, such as France and Spain, had taken a more radical legislative approach). Now they appear to be a world class failure in addressing increased rates of body shame and disordered eating.
Apart from a handful of token gestures, the industry has done very little. Once again, self-regulation has meant the industry has been able to do whatever it wants and get away with it.
So where does this leave the body image friendly ‘tick of approval?’ It was described in this press release:
In support of the Code, the Australian Government will be establishing a new Body Image Friendly awards scheme.
Awards will be given to industry organisations who can demonstrate meaningful and ongoing integration of the principles in the Code into their ongoing business.
Significantly, organisations who are recognised with these awards will earn the right to carry the ‘Body Image Friendly’ symbol. Winners will be able to utilise this symbol in their marketing and promotion.
“”This symbol builds on the momentum for changes that already exists in the fashion, media and beauty industries. It has great potential to become a point of differentiation for products being sold in the market,” Ms Ellis said.
“The symbol will be a marketing tool which acts as a signal to consumers that a particular product or brand stands for positive action on body image”.
An expert judging panel, headed again by Freedman, was to be set up to determine who would be deemed worthy of the body image friendly symbol.
It’s been a year now. So when does the judging start? Have any companies even applied? Have any shown any commitment at all to standing for “positive action on body image”?
One of the report’s recommendations states: “If, after a sustained period of continued developments… there is a broad failure of industry to adopt good body image practices, the Australian Government should look to review the voluntary nature of the code.”
It’s been a year and pretty much nothing has happened. So is the Government going to revisit the voluntary nature of the code? Or do we have to continue to ignore industry’s middle finger?
See also ‘Body Image Campaign Not Working’
8 Responses
Thank you Melinda for giving this issue some much needed attention. Significantly I think we all need to know where the 125 thousand dollars went. (or was it 150 or 175?? It was definitely over one hundred thousand).
What a sham waste of money – just like the many previous body image/media code of conduct/women in outdoor advertising etc reports and inquiries and advisory boards that preceeded this one.
We said at the time it was a sham waste of money – and whaddya know…we were right!!
It doesnt cost over one hundred grand to throw a few meetings together.
Melinda…you and I and other collegues have been consistently advocating for proactive responsibility from industry for half a decade now and we have seen little to none.
Kate Ellis should have consulted us – we could have given her that information for free!
As long as they don’t have to – as long as there are no strong penalties – as long as there is money to be made – as long as there is nothing to be gained financially – there will be no action!
Finally – where’s the money gone??????
This is just unacceptable! It is sounding just like the sexualisation review. It is as if they just buy time with empty promises, hoping we will forget about these issues and just move on.
Well, we will not! We need Australian bodies to begin listening to what the country is calling for. We will continue speaking about this until there is a proper answer and not some empty code and more hollow promises.
Come on Australia!
When I was young, I used to see the token ‘body image’ issues of Dolly and Cleo and hope that there would be something there to give me some comfort or reassurance that I really was ok. I always felt really bad about myself, especially after reading these magazines. (yet I kept buying them!) I was always bitterly disappointed and even felt worse about myself than if they hadn’t bothered at all. The efforts to include ‘larger’ girls would feature maybe 2 pages devoted to a size 12 girl (because that’s soooo enormous) with flawless skin and perfectly proportioned body. Yes, she wasn’t size 8, but she was perfect anyway. It was pathetic and token.
I see this ‘body image’ voluntary code as being the same thing on a much larger scale. Pathetic and Token. A way to say that Australia has done, or is doing something, when really they’ve done nothing at all. (just like the magazines hadn’t really done anything at all to improve ‘body image’) The industry relies on women and girls feeling like crap so that they can sell products to make them look like the girls in magazines. You cannot make money from women if they are confident, happy with their bodies and have accepted that they will age and that looking your age is appropriate and acceptable. So asking industry ‘would you please, if you didn’t mind, possibly think about considering not making women hate their bodies so much?’ well that was doomed to fail. And it was so bloody obvious that it would fail. My only question is…why is anyone surprised?
Thanks MTR for another great piece re the voluntary code of conduct. It’s good to see Mia Freedman has acknowledged the code has failed, but it’s paramount that body image issues are not forgotten about – what is the next step? I am quite in favour of taking Spain’s approach – where Spain (as you have alluded to) has looked at banning “cult of the body” advertising on TV etc before 10pm. It looks as though legislative changes are necessary rather than relying on the fashion and beauty industries to act ethically. Already there seems to be increasing numbers of companies who are using the language of body diversity to promote their products, when it fact they are still perpetuating an ultra-slim ideal (think: Levi’s latest ad campaign “Hotness comes in all shapes and sizes” – yet the models are all very similar in size and shape http://www.beautifulyoubyjulie.com/2011/06/levis-curve-id-but-where-are-the-curves/). Thanks for continuing to highlight the need to take greater action. We’re looking forward to contributing to Collective Shout’s future body image campaigns.
PS I should have added, “cult of the body” = plastic surgery, slimming products, and some beauty products/procedures
Every meeting I am involved with has an action plan and action items for each member to complete and report back on.
I wonder what the action points from the National Body Image Advisory Group were?
Did the group just hang out and chat about trendy fashion accessories and personal sponsorship they get from the very industry they were trying to get positive results from?
One hopes not.
Out of interest though, does anyone actually know what they did do? It’s evident what they didn’t do.
And who is keeping them accountable for the waste of resources?
This advisory board was never going to work. Why would you put someone who is a big part of the problem as the chair of the committee.
Mia Freedman still has posts on her blog called Frockwatch which are nothing more than an opportunity for her readers to comment on what people are wearing and how bad they look.
She does not get what body image is actually about. Her very narrow definition of positive body image is someone who is a size 10-12. If you are outside this then you obviously have a problem according to her.
Who can forget her spectacular fail with her gainers post. Once she knew she was in the wrong she just went back and changed the wording of her post to hide what she originally said then had the hide to call anyone who pulled her up on it a “big old bowl of crazy”
Will someone please stop spending our money on token gestures and actually get people who know what they are doing to come up with some ideas, not someone with questionable journalistic credentals.
Whoa.. has Mia Freedman updated her blog post since you posted this Melinda? seems she has added a qualification to the end of her blog post, and an article detailing all the great things that have come out of the body image initiatives… none of which involve the fashion or media industries btw..
The current minister for Youth, Peter Garrett has been (as far as I can tell) silent on this.. Why don’t we write to him and let him know what we think about it???
http://www.petergarrett.com.au/8.aspx
Here is the link for his contact details to his ministry.. I am writing to him….
I am not into blanket bashing of government, it is a tough job, and they need us to play our part too- if we are unhappy with outcomes or lack thereof, we need to tell them.
I don’t blame government that this initiative has not been successful – but I will blame government if a year on nothing has been achieved and they don’t do something to improve things.
Soooo I have written to ask what is being done.. It will be interesting to see what the response will be..
Surely the obvious thing to legislate is that all digital retouching be labelled?? If they can put cigarettes in plain packaging, or even just health warnings on cigarettes – why can’t they put health warnings on the images we see?? Wait!! see now I just assume that photos can’t do without retouching!!! Here is something really extreme – we could ban people from doing it in the first place! how ridiculous!! 😉