Food Fallacies: What You See Isn't What You Get

Media manipulation is a big issue these days. With photo-manipulation, CGI, and other special effects, advertisers can make a commercial or image look however they want. Even with the pictures that companies put on packaging or menus, what you see is rarely what you get. Often this is generally accepted as trying to make the product look as best as possible. But what happens when advertisers take it too far, and they advertise a product that will never look as good as it does on the box or commercial? Or worse, a product that simply does not exist as shown?

It is reasonable to suspect that many companies (food companies in particular) go to great lengths to get their product to look its best before photographing it. They set up the product so that it often looks more appealing than when the consumer dumps it onto a plate at home. Dynamic lighting and backgrounds add to this effect, making the product seem far more appealing than it will when the consumer takes it home. At this point, it is still the actual product; just the best of the product. It is reasonable to expect companies to want to showcase their product at its best.

Some consumers might be surprised to realize that what they are looking at in the package isn't at all what is in the package. Ice cream is often a very hard frosting. The milk in cereal bowls is often just a very heavy cream. Ice cubes in drinks are usually acrylic, and water is added to the drink itself so that the liquid will filter light better and seem to sparkle more. Browning agents are usually added to enhance the color of cooked meat.

Many in the industry will argue that these things are all necessary. Photographing a picture of an ice cream package would take ages if food stylists needed to set up a new bowl every few minutes because their props were melting. Same with the ice cubes. The cream instead of milk is a similar issue; the setup will last longer and the time spent at the shoot will be more efficient. From an artistic standpoint, these are all valid concerns. However, from an advertising standpoint, there is a bit more to consider.

How can consumers expect to make an informed decision when nearly all the products they see are fake? The simple answer is they can't. Aside from looking at things other than pictures, such as food content and consumer reviews (if they are available.) It is not just food packaging these techniques appear in. These are often used in the commercials themselves. Again, advertisers will say that it is the most efficient way to film it, but what of the consumers? How can consumers "like what they see" when what they see is not the actual product?

Also, with the advent of photo and film manipulation, what will happen when this is taken to the next step? Could advertisers use the above arguments to justify simply computer generating a packaging image or even an entire commercial? Or would the only be allowed to "enhance" an existing image? And where do we draw the line?

The upside to this is that consumers in general are becoming more aware of these issues, and are learning to make decisions based on things other than what they see. The consumer's defense against these advertising techniques is growing, with an increasing amount of literature available online from unbiased third parties. Yet one must wonder, what do such sites mean for the future of advertising? Could they one day lead to a society in which commercials are more honest? Or one in which companies simply try to make the best product, rather than the best commercial? One can only hope.