And they picked from a pool of *models*. That isn't exactly the average woman there.

It's still a *beauty* pageant, right?

So, exactly what kind of campaign would a make-up company have to run to be acceptable? (Short of saying "Don't buy our product, you're great the way you are!") Being interesting in some way is an important part of attraction to most people, and I would think most would find this ad preferable to ones that have a theme of- "Here's a woman. Doesn't she look hot? We did that."

And if you're not pretty to start with, does it even matter? Do you even exist?

The videos showed that there are mostly women involved: a welcome change for an industry that is dominated by (gay) men - read more here, here or here. There was even a post here in SI about this some time ago (I think her name was Ashley). Even though nymag.com takes the apologetic route, they recognize that in the fashion industry you have “plenty of women and a handful of straight dudes working in it.” However, how many of those "plenty of women" call the shots? The reason I’m posting those links is to make sure that I’m not coming across as criticizing the overrepresentation of gays in the fashion industry, but simply to point out that more women in the industry can be a positive force to change the prevailing fashion’s body type aesthetic. On the other hand, the whole discussion of models not looking like “real” or “average” women is missing something; many of those models are still teenagers. Heidi Klum was very young (Kate Moss was even younger) when she started in the 90s, but not that long ago Karl Lagerfeld criticized her “heavier” figure (but one has to wonder how many women would object to having the body that Lagerfeld was criticizing). Add in a non-trivial amount of racism, and you’ll see that this industry is rife for closer examination. But I digress.

The point is, I’ll be glad to see more women in important positions in the fashion industry.

I think it's important to look at all ads with a critical eye, so bravo! I've always thought Bare Escentuals did a good job at showing how their product works on a range of women, with a range of skin types and "issues," and the abilities of their product to solve those "issues." That is better than the norm. But only slightly. My problem is that women still have to use makeup to cover themselves, which runs counter to the seeming purpose of the ad: That Bare Escentuals has found true "beauty" that doesn't have anything to do with how a woman looks. At the end of the day, not only does the ad make me not feel pretty or beautiful or whatever, but now I feel like I'm not accomplished enough, either! The outer world is a commodity, now the inner world has become one, too. I like this article. Thank you!

I think it is more worth of notice the thinks they might be selecting rather than this idea that women's personalities are commodified.

On the other hand, they are calling beauty a very specific set of ideas. I mean, having a collection of swords, blogging, having multiple masters degrees, being a mother at 40, being concerned about the environment, being fluent in multiple languages, being a black belt... what they call beauty is actually what aligns to a specific ideology as well as to a specific class.

So in a way it also says that differing point of views or people outside a specific class are either ugly or not worth of importance and might.

I don't think that commodifying models' personalities is actually that problematic at all.  More often than not, models are treated like clothes hangers; they are a pretty face to attach a product to.  But this campaign that personalizes models and shows women of different ages and races with unique individual personalities and achievements is really beneficial.  It shows that pretty women aren't just pretty, they have other qualities to be valued besides their physical attractiveness.

That said, these women are all "pretty".  They chose from a pool of models and actresses. They ensured that no matter who they chose based on their inner beauty embodied outer beauty as well.  All these women have conventionally attractive body types and objectively attractive facial features according to our society.  Also, since all of these women are models and actresses in Los Angeles, they all come from an upper middle class socioeconomic status.  (This is probably also their target customer demographic).  

Why didn't they post a questionnaire on their website for real women to fill out?  Don't they realize that women who buy cosmetics have diverse features and body types?  If their product is about letting the inner beauty of a woman shine through, should her outer beauty matter at all?  Although the concept was fresh and inclusive in a world where we are constantly being told that women are their bodies, the first step in the process caused it to be flawed and undermined from the start.  "Blind" hiring practices are a step towards a less destructive advertising industry, but the hiring pool needs to be widened to include everyone before any practice can be considered inclusive.

Obviously attaching any social message to a product is always grubby, but this seems like a fairly positive social message. After all, I think most of the readers here would acknowledge the moral worth of the achievements listed (as opposed to 'looking beautiful', which has considerable social worth, but only limited moral worth).

There's also a qualitative difference between 'inner' and 'outer' beauty. Talents and interests can be acquired, whereas (surgery aside) one is basically stuck with the looks one is given. There is therefore more room for legitimate exhortation and aspiration in the realm of inner beauty.

I'd still rather it didn't fall to a cosmetics company, who clearly have ulterior motives, to advocate a fuller life, but I'm not going to jump on them for doing so.

Definitions: social worth=those things rewarded by society. Moral worth=those things which objectively better society.

I miss the days when advertising just told you what the product did and what it could be used for...