Beauty Match-Up: How Different Levels and Types of Beauty Play Into Ads

crawford
It is no secret that brands like to use attractive ladies in their advertisements. Commercials and print ads regularly use good-looking models and actors to pitch their products. But does the strategy work?
Researchers have been studying the concept of beauty in advertising for decades. There is undoubtedly a reason why the term “supermodel” exists, with many brands and advertisers putting their money on pretty faces and hot bods to pitch their products.
For a long time, the studies focused on whether or not attractive people sold products better than unattractive people. A slew of studies in the 1970s and 1980s pitted the likes of Cindy Crawford against Ugly Betty and confirmed that people like to buy products from a pretty face (Solomon, Admore & Longo, 1992).
Finally, in 1992, Solomon, Admore and Longo looked into how advertisers could maximize on their model investment further, offering the Beauty Match Up hypothesis that suggested that certain types of beauty were more effective at selling certain types of products. The hypothesis was built on the idea that there are multiple kinds of attractiveness. For example, one woman can be “cute”, another “sexy”, and a third “elegant”. What they found was that there were optimal match-ups between beauty types and products, and that basically the attractiveness-type needed to match the brand’s identity. For example, Cosmopolitan magazine frequently runs articles about sex, and they often employ sex-kitten type models. The model attractiveness-type reinforces the brand’s message, so it’s a good fit (Solomon, Admore & Longo, 1992).
Likewise, a brand can shape the public’s perception of them by using a certain type of attractiveness. For example, advertisements for the Mazda Miata used models that were described as “California looking” while Chrysler used models that were more like the “approachable girl next door”.
But are we really that shallow? Do we really only buy products from attractive people?
In 2001, Amanda Bower and Stacy Landreth challenged the idea that we only want the most attractive people on earth selling us our products. They felt that the main flaw in the slew of research a few decades ago was that they only compared supermodels to ugly people. But what about us normal folk? Doesn’t anyone want to buy what we’re selling?
To answer that question, the researchers put together a study to investigate whether highly attractive models (HAMs) sell products better than just normally attractive models (NAMs).
First, the researchers employed judges to separate beauty products into problem-solving products, such as zit-concealer and acne wash, and enhancement products, such as lipstick and jewelry. Next, the judges found full page ads featuring models that they designated as either “normally attractive” or “highly attractive”. The NAMs were all drawn from ads that used real-people makeovers, meaning they were just normal people who received professional hair and makeup styling. HAMs were professional models.
What the researchers found was that consumers trusted the HAMs more when it came to the enhancement products, but that both types of models were trusted equally when it came to problem-solving products (Bower & Landreth, 2001).

So, the bottom line is that we recognize different kinds of beauty, like to buy our products when the beautiful person selling it looks like they accurately represent the brand, but would slum it with a normal looking woman to buy our zit cream.
Sources:
Bower, Amanda B. & Landreth, Stacy. (Spring 2001). Is Beauty Best? Highly Versus Normally Attractive Models in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, XXX (1), 1-13.
Solomon, Michael R., Asmore, Richard D., & Longo, Laura C. (1992). The Beauty Match-Up crawfordHypothesis: Congruence Between Types of Beauty and Product Images in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, XXI (4), 23-34.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Beauty Match-Up: How Different Levels and Types of Beauty Play Into Ads

  1. This is very interesting. It goes without saying but “Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.” Brands are always looking for the it girl who represents their brand well. However, sometimes it is not realistic. For instance Beyonce with Pepsi. There is no way that Pepsi is being digested by this woman. I bet during the commercial there was water in the can. But we as women see Beyonce and we just have to have everything she has. Beyonce drinks pepsi so I will drink pepsi. There has to be a time where we look at the advertisement versus the reality. Beauty is just the advert.

    Like

  2. Coming from a country where sexy beauty are used to represent each kind of brand from washing machines to shoes and cars, I was surprised by the not recurring use of models in American commercials. However, I also realized with disappointment the racism in judging some beautiful women based on their origins. In detail, more than one complained with me that Fiat 500 used Jennifer Lopez, a girl from Puerto Rico to sponsor the car’s arrival on the American market. 🙂 If a woman is beautiful, I can appreciate her beauty and I do not care from which country she comes from…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s