Nike ad using plus size mannequins
Options
Replies
-
People get really weird about that stuff, both out in the world and here. Nike seems to have a variety of different sized mannequins for different body types, most of which are still skinny. That its so radical that someone makes any effort to serve a market share that makes up 40% of the US (people who qualify as obese), shows how skewed our marketing normally is.
And how could anybody think a company that exists to sell exercise gear (and makes more money if more people exercise) is promoting obesity? And it's running, not exercise you can do sitting down like riding a bike or rowing!2 -
Once popular in describing steamy "romance" novels and movies back when sexually explicit mainstream books and films were rare.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Once popular in describing steamy "romance" novels and movies back when sexually explicit mainstream books and films were rare.
Knowing me...I'm actually surprised I forgot about that
Very true 
1 -
grinning_chick wrote: »
Without knowing the height/measurements of that mannequin to verify it is true, who can say for sure. Nike's extended sizing is 1X-3X. To me, that mannequin is easily over a size 20 considering at my highest weight I wore size 22, frequently tightly, was still in obese class I by BMI, and my waist circumference was nowhere near as large what the mannequin's appears to be. So if that mannequin is modeling 2X or 3X instead of the presumed 1X, it would be a "mid fat".Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »That's odd. I didn't see the promoting obesity comments but I did see comments complaining that the mannequin actually wasn't plus size enough. There were comments that Nike is only inclusive of "small fats" and that this wasn't good enough. It's like nobody can win either way.
I think it's great that Nike is trying. The majority of the US qualifies as obese but that doesn't mean that they are the bulk of people buying Nike workout clothes so Nike doesn't really have to do anything. At least they're making an effort; I think being more inclusive is better than not even trying at all.
That's weird because that mannequin doesn't really look like a "small fat" to me. I understand that sometimes when people talk about "plus sized" models, it can sound kind of offensive because a lot of the time they look like just regular weight people. But that mannequin, while not trying to be representative of a morbidly obese person, would certainly represent someone with an obese BMI.
In the HAES/body positive/FA community, that is what a "small fat" is.
That's true; I was just responding with regard to the comments I saw online. For me I can easily tell it's a plus size mannequin but if someone asked me to guess its size I don't think my guess would be close. As a side note, the toxic side of the HAES/FA community would most likely still classify that mannequin as a small fat as evidenced by the comments I saw about this photo regardless of the chart I linked. It's gone from being body positive to being body positive toward plus size people to shaming smaller plus size people for not being large enough and still having the benefits of thin privilege.
In any case, I think most of the comments here agree that it's great that Nike is even doing this. Whether it's for true inclusion or to cause a stir online, at least there is representation of larger bodies. It seems like when things like this happen, the extremists on both sides are tapping away furiously at their keyboards while everyone else is just living their life.9 -
lauragreenbaum wrote: »So this image was posted on LinkedIn of all places, and I was shocked by the number of people who made terrible comments that Nike is promoting obesity. What is wrong with people?? I think it's great because how are people supposed to work out if they don't have clothes that fit?
No one will ever be able to keep everyone happy imo. I think it's fantastic that at least some major corportations whose business is health/fitness centered are at least trying. People come in all shapes and sizes are are so rarely anything close to perfect, so keeping the marketing based on reality and not BS ideals is just fine with me.
That was my biggest issue with Title IX clothing back in the 90's. They didn't sell anything above a size 14. A company that was founded on equality of opportunity for women excludes a significant market share, SMH.
5 -
lauragreenbaum wrote: »So this image was posted on LinkedIn of all places, and I was shocked by the number of people who made terrible comments that Nike is promoting obesity. What is wrong with people?? I think it's great because how are people supposed to work out if they don't have clothes that fit?
No one will ever be able to keep everyone happy imo. I think it's fantastic that at least some major corportations whose business is health/fitness centered are at least trying. People come in all shapes and sizes are are so rarely anything close to perfect, so keeping the marketing based on reality and not BS ideals is just fine with me.
That was my biggest issue with Title IX clothing back in the 90's. They didn't sell anything above a size 14. A company that was founded on equality of opportunity for women excludes a significant market share, SMH.
I think I actually remember Title IX lol. I agree with you and would say most decision makers still bank on that one, healthy and airbrushed image today. I don't want to ever see any other young women go through what my daughter went through regarding her perceived body image and how she tied that to her self worth.
I think this is a great step in the right direction, but quite frankly I don't think they'll nail it until ads/commercials are using anyone at any time to send the right message. Heh, that message will be enough of a source of contention alone these days.4 -
I mean... this is specifically the group of people that would benefit the most from encouragement towards physical activity. The goal should always remain to be healthy, but it makes complete sense that they would try to market exercise clothes to larger people. I can understand why people may see it as encouraging people to be unhealthy, but taking issue with the representation is kind of like laughing at fat people in the gym; nonsensical and counterproductive.10
-
I am sure many men that are not overly fit would like to see that, good way to see what clothes may look on themselves before trying it on... but I think "society" encourages men to keep their thoughts on their body, etc. (much like emotions) to themselves
Quality mens' clothing obscures the form, and until very recently was more utilitarian in design. Suits before the modern "slim" (crappy) fit is designed not for the longevity of the suit but rather to make people feel more muscular than they are, but even then, a larger person wearing a nice blazer and pants wont really have to worry about looking fat unless they're really fat. Curves are straitened.
Womens' clothing is almost all about celebrating the form. Curves are accentuated. It's honestly less of an issue for guys unless you're looking specifically at athletic clothing, and even then you have the option of loose fitting t-shirts, hoodies, loose shorts and track pants. You almost have to go out of your way to show off while wearing clothes.9 -
Bravo Nike!
7 -
Maybe I’m weird but I don’t even notice mannequin size/shape, I only look at the actual clothes. I already know that the mannequins will never ever represent my personal body type (much taller and curvier than average) and rarely do realistically for any body type because, well... they are plastic mannequins
Sure makes for good publicity though, right?
3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Once popular in describing steamy "romance" novels and movies back when sexually explicit mainstream books and films were rare.
And carried over to a store for plus-sized clothing because - somehow - the many marketing machines seemed to move from thinking all plus sized women wanted to wear frumpy sacks, to thinking all plus sized women wanted to wear decollege-revealing things (they think we're all ample), often with glittery stuff or animal prints, "cold shoulder" styling, too many skinny straps, etc. I know it's not accurate or fair, but in frustration as a 40+ y/o conservatively-dressing obese woman, I'd sometimes accused them of moving from frumpwear to slutwear. <eye roll>Maxematics wrote: »<snip>
In any case, I think most of the comments here agree that it's great that Nike is even doing this. Whether it's for true inclusion or to cause a stir online, at least there is representation of larger bodies. It seems like when things like this happen, the extremists on both sides are tapping away furiously at their keyboards while everyone else is just living their life.
Personally, speaking as a formerly obese active woman, I didn't/don't really care that much about "inclusion" or "representation". I cared more about whether I could just find sensible, practical, affordable clothing that actually fit to wear while pursuing improved fitness. I know the "fat fit" are a relatively smaller target market, but it shouldn't be as hard as it has been. The target market is non-zero.
12 -
Maxematics wrote: »grinning_chick wrote: »
Without knowing the height/measurements of that mannequin to verify it is true, who can say for sure. Nike's extended sizing is 1X-3X. To me, that mannequin is easily over a size 20 considering at my highest weight I wore size 22, frequently tightly, was still in obese class I by BMI, and my waist circumference was nowhere near as large what the mannequin's appears to be. So if that mannequin is modeling 2X or 3X instead of the presumed 1X, it would be a "mid fat".Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »That's odd. I didn't see the promoting obesity comments but I did see comments complaining that the mannequin actually wasn't plus size enough. There were comments that Nike is only inclusive of "small fats" and that this wasn't good enough. It's like nobody can win either way.
I think it's great that Nike is trying. The majority of the US qualifies as obese but that doesn't mean that they are the bulk of people buying Nike workout clothes so Nike doesn't really have to do anything. At least they're making an effort; I think being more inclusive is better than not even trying at all.
That's weird because that mannequin doesn't really look like a "small fat" to me. I understand that sometimes when people talk about "plus sized" models, it can sound kind of offensive because a lot of the time they look like just regular weight people. But that mannequin, while not trying to be representative of a morbidly obese person, would certainly represent someone with an obese BMI.
In the HAES/body positive/FA community, that is what a "small fat" is.
That's true; I was just responding with regard to the comments I saw online. For me I can easily tell it's a plus size mannequin but if someone asked me to guess its size I don't think my guess would be close. As a side note, the toxic side of the HAES/FA community would most likely still classify that mannequin as a small fat as evidenced by the comments I saw about this photo regardless of the chart I linked. It's gone from being body positive to being body positive toward plus size people to shaming smaller plus size people for not being large enough and still having the benefits of thin privilege.
In any case, I think most of the comments here agree that it's great that Nike is even doing this. Whether it's for true inclusion or to cause a stir online, at least there is representation of larger bodies. It seems like when things like this happen, the extremists on both sides are tapping away furiously at their keyboards while everyone else is just living their life.
It's for the bottom line, pure and simple.4 -
What I like about the picture is that not only is the “fat mannequin” really fat, but the skinny mannequins look like realistic athletic women, not like weirdly stylized superhero comics.8
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »grinning_chick wrote: »
Without knowing the height/measurements of that mannequin to verify it is true, who can say for sure. Nike's extended sizing is 1X-3X. To me, that mannequin is easily over a size 20 considering at my highest weight I wore size 22, frequently tightly, was still in obese class I by BMI, and my waist circumference was nowhere near as large what the mannequin's appears to be. So if that mannequin is modeling 2X or 3X instead of the presumed 1X, it would be a "mid fat".Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »That's odd. I didn't see the promoting obesity comments but I did see comments complaining that the mannequin actually wasn't plus size enough. There were comments that Nike is only inclusive of "small fats" and that this wasn't good enough. It's like nobody can win either way.
I think it's great that Nike is trying. The majority of the US qualifies as obese but that doesn't mean that they are the bulk of people buying Nike workout clothes so Nike doesn't really have to do anything. At least they're making an effort; I think being more inclusive is better than not even trying at all.
That's weird because that mannequin doesn't really look like a "small fat" to me. I understand that sometimes when people talk about "plus sized" models, it can sound kind of offensive because a lot of the time they look like just regular weight people. But that mannequin, while not trying to be representative of a morbidly obese person, would certainly represent someone with an obese BMI.
In the HAES/body positive/FA community, that is what a "small fat" is.
That's true; I was just responding with regard to the comments I saw online. For me I can easily tell it's a plus size mannequin but if someone asked me to guess its size I don't think my guess would be close. As a side note, the toxic side of the HAES/FA community would most likely still classify that mannequin as a small fat as evidenced by the comments I saw about this photo regardless of the chart I linked. It's gone from being body positive to being body positive toward plus size people to shaming smaller plus size people for not being large enough and still having the benefits of thin privilege.
In any case, I think most of the comments here agree that it's great that Nike is even doing this. Whether it's for true inclusion or to cause a stir online, at least there is representation of larger bodies. It seems like when things like this happen, the extremists on both sides are tapping away furiously at their keyboards while everyone else is just living their life.
It's for the bottom line, pure and simple.
maybe.
maybe not.
it's Nike.
I'm not sure that Nike only had their bottom line in mind when they launched the Kaepernick Ad.
However, that Ad campaign was actually viewed as favorable & Nike stock responded to the upside.3 -
Motorsheen wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »grinning_chick wrote: »
Without knowing the height/measurements of that mannequin to verify it is true, who can say for sure. Nike's extended sizing is 1X-3X. To me, that mannequin is easily over a size 20 considering at my highest weight I wore size 22, frequently tightly, was still in obese class I by BMI, and my waist circumference was nowhere near as large what the mannequin's appears to be. So if that mannequin is modeling 2X or 3X instead of the presumed 1X, it would be a "mid fat".Maxematics wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »That's odd. I didn't see the promoting obesity comments but I did see comments complaining that the mannequin actually wasn't plus size enough. There were comments that Nike is only inclusive of "small fats" and that this wasn't good enough. It's like nobody can win either way.
I think it's great that Nike is trying. The majority of the US qualifies as obese but that doesn't mean that they are the bulk of people buying Nike workout clothes so Nike doesn't really have to do anything. At least they're making an effort; I think being more inclusive is better than not even trying at all.
That's weird because that mannequin doesn't really look like a "small fat" to me. I understand that sometimes when people talk about "plus sized" models, it can sound kind of offensive because a lot of the time they look like just regular weight people. But that mannequin, while not trying to be representative of a morbidly obese person, would certainly represent someone with an obese BMI.
In the HAES/body positive/FA community, that is what a "small fat" is.
That's true; I was just responding with regard to the comments I saw online. For me I can easily tell it's a plus size mannequin but if someone asked me to guess its size I don't think my guess would be close. As a side note, the toxic side of the HAES/FA community would most likely still classify that mannequin as a small fat as evidenced by the comments I saw about this photo regardless of the chart I linked. It's gone from being body positive to being body positive toward plus size people to shaming smaller plus size people for not being large enough and still having the benefits of thin privilege.
In any case, I think most of the comments here agree that it's great that Nike is even doing this. Whether it's for true inclusion or to cause a stir online, at least there is representation of larger bodies. It seems like when things like this happen, the extremists on both sides are tapping away furiously at their keyboards while everyone else is just living their life.
It's for the bottom line, pure and simple.
maybe.
maybe not.
it's Nike.
I'm not sure that Nike only had their bottom line in mind when they launched the Kaepernick Ad.
However, that Ad campaign was actually viewed as favorable & Nike stock responded to the upside.
It's the bottom line. If you think otherwise what Nike cares about check with the people making their products in third world counties and report back.
https://www.newsweek.com/nike-factory-workers-still-work-long-days-low-wages-asia-11101297 -
@AnnPT77 I had to buy a wetsuit last year and it was one of the worst shopping experiences in my life. I did it all online, but it made me feel so awful about myself that I couldn't find one that would fit me. I searched for days. I eventually came across a brand that makes suits for triathalons, and their biggest size for women went up to 220 lbs. At the time I was 240, but this was the best I could find so I gave it a try and it fit. But its like c'mon world, now plus size people don't go diving? Jeezus.5
-
sammidelvecchio wrote: »@AnnPT77 I had to buy a wetsuit last year and it was one of the worst shopping experiences in my life. I did it all online, but it made me feel so awful about myself that I couldn't find one that would fit me. I searched for days. I eventually came across a brand that makes suits for triathalons, and their biggest size for women went up to 220 lbs. At the time I was 240, but this was the best I could find so I gave it a try and it fit. But its like c'mon world, now plus size people don't go diving? Jeezus.
Yup. Mine was for kayaking. Finally I realized I could go 2-piece, for that purpose: Mens' top for the post-mastectomy thing, womens' bottom for the then-ample hips. I ran across custom ones for diving along the way: Not as affordable as off-the-rack, but cheaper than I would've guessed. Tried to find dry suits, too, but would've had to buy mens' then, at my size at the time; the plumbing is sub-ideal. 1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions