• Comment (4)

FTC's Skechers Case Is a Coup for Women

May 17, 2012 RSS Feed Print

American consumers are a pretty savvy bunch, and tend to know that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The Federal Trade Commission took it a step further, accusing the athletic shoemaker Skechers of running misleading ads about what its women's sneakers could do.

"Get in shape without setting foot in a gym," the ads for the sneakers said. The "Tone Up" shoes were designed in a way meant to add work to the gluteals, presumably strengthening one's buttocks. The shoes—just by being worn and walked in—would also help wearers lose weight and even combat heart disease, the manufacturer said.

In a more officially-worded complaint, the FTC said what most of us would conclude: What a load of crap. So obvious was this lie that Skechers agreed to pay $40 million in a settlement.

It's a victory for consumers, who deserve not to be outrageously misled by advertisers, but it's also an unintended coup for women, whom Skechers deeply insulted with its ads.

[See photos of Michelle Obama promoting the Let's Move! Initiative. ]

The TV spots for the sneakers looked like some sort of soft-core porn, or maybe a beer commercial during football season. They featured women in shorts more suitable for a pole dancer than an actual athlete, with the camera zeroing in on her backside so closely that one wondered if it was some new kind of obstetrician-gynecologist exam. A print ad cheekily urges women to "love your rear-end"'—except that the "love'' and "backside" parts were replaced by hearts, the second one upside-down. How clever!

Reebok's ads for their shape-up sneakers were even worse. The shoes will do so much to firm your butt that it'll "make your boobs jealous," the ad said. Well, it was effective. It made me decide right then and there that I would never, ever buy anything from Reebok again—not a running shoe or T-shirt or sweat sock.

Is it so difficult for advertisers to accept that women can be athletes? How self-centered do you have to be to imagine that the only reason women would exercise is to make their rear ends firm and appealing to men? There's a big market out there called women. And if you want to sell the product, don't insult the customer.

 

Tags:
FTC,
advertising,
consumers

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

You can find all of the documentation and lots of other class action lawsuit settlement awards at www.mysettlementclaims.com. I found I was eligible for 6 different lawsuit claims.

bri of CA 12:44AM May 23, 2012

Women actually thought that buying a particular pair of shoes would make them lose weight and be more healthy... and remover stretch marks, moles, pimples, and eliminate periods.

Way to go girls... show 'em what you got!

Chuckie of CA 9:24PM May 19, 2012

I BELIEVE...

in a woman's right to be an airhead. Say, who's modeling in those ads? What sex are runway, Victoria Secret models? Who's buying those shoes?

If women didn't like them then they should simply not purchase them not file lawsuits and government complaints. The actions of the complainers simply raise the costs for all of us. Trial lawyers and smug government bureaucrats are costing this nation billions annually.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 2:21PM May 17, 2012

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer and contributed to a biography of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, "Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy." Follow her on Twitter @MilliganSusan.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement