Archived Awful Photoshops by Target!

[Dreamwolf31]

I found this gem about an awful photoshopped picture that Target did. This is not the first time I've seen awful Photoshop ads by Target. During Halloween they photoshopped a costume on a model and it was terrible.


http://www.eonline.com/news/519820/...thigh-gap?cmpid=sn-111021-facebook-na-eonline

 

[LadyNRed]

I was shocked, sad really...How could they have missed this???? I came across the article by way of a friend who asked me what Target had to say about it, but I didn't even know! Not fun though, gives guest more reasons to yell at Front End....

http://www.policymic.com/articles/8...hts-what-s-wrong-with-female-beauty-standards

 

[commiecorvus]

I don't know how that even got past the first check but then I've seen some pretty egregious spelling errors where I've had to replace the signs.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars of signs and they can't use spellcheck?

Also mentioned in this thread.
http://thebreakroom.org/index.php?posts/113627/

 

[oath2order]

OH. So that's what they were talking about. I heard it mentioned, didn't see it. Ouch.

 

[qmosqueen]

I just wonder how much Target is paying this photshop TM to do this ??? hmm must be more than any Flow TM or PA's.

 

[Dave Johnson]

thats the new style bikini for our 2014 swimwear... lol..

 

[AssetsProtection]

That gap tho..

 

[RhettB]

Crotch-less bikini, now on sale. Meanwhile, we are still waiting on Plus Sizes to arrive. Is the company changing (or limiting?) its preferred shopping audience?

Another blunder to drop sales.

 

[qmosqueen]

and traget paid someone to do this bad photoshop ?

 

[commiecorvus]

and traget paid someone to do this bad photoshop ?

Yep, but probably lowest bid.
Maybe next time they will take it to somebody who knows what they're doing.

 

[buliSBI]

I rather not post the article's pictures as it may be considered poor taste.



http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/national_world&id=9464049

It appears that Target went a little too far with Photoshop in an ad for a girl's bathing suit.



The model in the ad has a thigh gap, the gaping space between her legs and a worrying body trend among teenage girls. But the gap actually extends into her pelvis (and the bathing suit the ad aims to sell) in an apparent slip of the Photoshop eraser.

"It was an unfortunate error on our part and we apologize," Target spokesman Evan Miller told ABCNews.com. "We removed the image from the site and we're working to get a new image up there."

Several bloggers captured the Photoshop fail before the image was removed.

"If it weren't part of an ongoing attempt to mold unrealistic bodies in fashion marketing, it would almost be funny," The Ethical Adman wrote on his blog.

The model was also missing part of her hip and ribcage.

 

[AssetsProtection]

http://thebreakroom.org/index.php?threads/awful-photoshops-by-target.7788/

 

[Mugen]

Looks like they hired a ten year old to edit that in MS Paint. I'm sure I could do a better job in MS Paint.

 

[mrknownothing]

 

[commiecorvus]

Since we had four different threads on this subject I merged them together.

 

[RhettB]

I don't know how that even got past the first check but then I've seen some pretty egregious spelling errors where I've had to replace the signs.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars of signs and they can't use spellcheck?

Also mentioned in this thread.
http://thebreakroom.org/index.php?posts/113627/

The signs at the ends of the toy aisles once had one for "Thomas the Tank".

 

[daninnj]

I don't know how that even got past the first check but then I've seen some pretty egregious spelling errors where I've had to replace the signs.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars of signs and they can't use spellcheck?

Also mentioned in this thread.
http://thebreakroom.org/index.php?posts/113627/

The signs at the ends of the toy aisles once had one for "Thomas the Tank".

One of the signs hanging up right now for yogurt has the flavor listed as "strawberru"

 

[Dreamwolf31]

Gosh, I just love the taste of fresh strawberrus

 

[commiecorvus]

I think my favorite was skinnie jeans.

 

[looseseal]

and traget paid someone to do this bad photoshop ?

Yep, but probably lowest bid.
Maybe next time they will take it to somebody who knows what they're doing.

Or they could just leave it alone all together and it'll be a non-issue! Besides, whether or not you have a thigh gap is 100% anatomical and isn't really something that can be achieved naturally... although I wouldn't be surprised if we hear about a surgery for this in the future.

 

[Barcode]

Lets not be naïve and think that NOT photoshopping adverts is the way to go. Then people are just going to complain that Store XYZ's models are ugly (lets face it, SOME models NEED the photoshopping done...)

Yes this may have been an extreme case considering the goal should be to make it appear as if it hasn't been photoshopped, but demonizing photoshopping entirely is just silly. I guarantee that if we took ALL photoshopping away, people wouldn't like it.

 

[sigma7]

I think my favorite was skinnie jeans.

My personal favorite: The Uncredible Hulk.

 

[looseseal]

Lets not be naïve and think that NOT photoshopping adverts is the way to go. Then people are just going to complain that Store XYZ's models are ugly (lets face it, SOME models NEED the photoshopping done...)

Yes this may have been an extreme case considering the goal should be to make it appear as if it hasn't been photoshopped, but demonizing photoshopping entirely is just silly. I guarantee that if we took ALL photoshopping away, people wouldn't like it.

Actually, Aerie decided to do just that, and it doesn't seem like people are too upset about it. Nothing too ugly about them either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/aerie-unretouched-ads-photos_n_4618139.html

 

[commiecorvus]

Lets not be naïve and think that NOT photoshopping adverts is the way to go. Then people are just going to complain that Store XYZ's models are ugly (lets face it, SOME models NEED the photoshopping done...)

Yes this may have been an extreme case considering the goal should be to make it appear as if it hasn't been photoshopped, but demonizing photoshopping entirely is just silly. I guarantee that if we took ALL photoshopping away, people wouldn't like it.

Actually, Aerie decided to do just that, and it doesn't seem like people are too upset about it. Nothing too ugly about them either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/aerie-unretouched-ads-photos_n_4618139.html

Yep, I think these ads are great.
A good example of how companies could and should do it.

 

[Barcode]

Yeah they are okay, but I don't see what the big controversy is over photoshopping it to look better in the first place? "It sends the wrong message to young girls"? Since when do we need the media to parent for us? I seriously think there are more important things for people to be upset about.

The truth is people like looking at pretty people. If the person modeling those clothes looks exceptionally pretty, they are more likely to buy it. Therefore it is only logical to photo shop because it means you are more likely to have people buy your stuff. Advertising your adverts as "Photo Shop Free" might win you points with people who have a personal gripe with Photoshopping, but most probably won't care. No one used to care about photoshopping until this past year, and its basically the new popular thing to hate -- they've been doing it for ages though.