IKEA (Saudi franchisee) removes all the women in Saudi catalogue

zenbuffy

Well, pretty much as per title - a Saudi franchise of IKEA have been caught out as people have discovered that they photoshopped the catalogue they sent out to remove all of the women.

Well done to that franchise for protecting the delicate sensibilites of men who can't bear to see fully dressed women pretending to brush their teeth while posing in a fake bathroom.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19786862

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/ikea-drops-women-from-arab-brochure-3246622.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578030274200387136.html

I certainly hope that there will be some repercussions for the franchisee, since they clearly violated IKEA policies, but I suspect that this will be turned into a religious freedom issue by some.

jhegarty

They might say it's against policy but the catalog is on Ikea's website , and it still hasn't been removed.

Celly Smunt

jhegarty wrote: »

They might say it's against policy but the catalog is on Ikea's website , and it still hasn't been removed.

yes it has.

jhegarty

http://onlinecatalogue.ikea.com/SA/ar/IKEA_Catalogue/

Celly Smunt

jhegarty wrote: »

http://onlinecatalogue.ikea.com/SA/ar/IKEA_Catalogue/

page 95-94.

jhegarty

pmcmahon wrote: »

page 95-94.

That's the point I am making. The catalog hasn't been removed from the website.

Celly Smunt

jhegarty wrote: »

That's the point I am making. The catalog hasn't been removed from the website.

why should it be it has removed the images of women

fitz0

pmcmahon wrote: »

why should it be it has removed the images of women

Because doing so is against IKEA's policy?

zenbuffy

fitz0 wrote: »

pmcmahon wrote: »

why should it be it has removed the images of women

Because doing so is against IKEA's policy?

And also because continuing to remove images of women based on an archaic religious law is ridiculous.

Bannasidhe

IKEA Foundation promotes empowerment of women...:D

Voices of women

In 2009, we partnered with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to empower 50,000 women in 500 villages of Uttar Pradesh, India to become leaders, role models, entrepreneurs and agents of change. This carries forward work initiated under a Child Rights Project implemented by UNICEF in partnership with IKEA Foundation in the same villages.

http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/the_ikea_story/people_and_the_environment/voices_of_women.html

IKEA Saudi Arabia removes images of women....:mad:

Well they can feck off if they think I am buying a KLIPPAN Loveseat until they sort this ****e out.*




*I won't buy it then either on the grounds that it's hideous but don't tell them that.

Peregrinus

Well, think about this for a minute.

The catalogue is a marketing tool. It’s usual, for obvious reasons, for marketing tools to be adapted to the tastes and expectations of the market that they are aimed at. Odd though it may appear to us, it may well be that images of women brushing their teeth are not an effective marketing tool in Saudi Arabia; that they could even be counterproductive. Should a business be required to advertise in a way that will alienate potential consumers? And, if we think it should, can we claim to be wedded to freedom of speech?

You can make the case, I suppose, that appearing in advertising in a tooth-brushing pose is empowering to women (though, frankly, I think that’s a bit of a stretch). But we don’t have to look too far to find ways in which woman are frequently treated in advertising in Western countries which are distinctly disempowering. If we tolerate that in our own society – and we clearly do – is it not a bit hypocritical to get worked up about women being treated in a disempowering way in advertising in other societies?

We may not be all that well-positioned to be casting the first stone here. Just sayin’.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, think about this for a minute.

The catalogue is a marketing tool. It’s usual, for obvious reasons, for marketing tools to be adapted to the tastes and expectations of the market that they are aimed at. Odd though it may appear to us, it may well be that images of women brushing their teeth are not an effective marketing tool in Saudi Arabia; that they could even be counterproductive. Should a business be required to advertise in a way that will alienate potential consumers? And, if we think it should, can we claim to be wedded to freedom of speech?

You can make the case, I suppose, that appearing in advertising in a tooth-brushing pose is empowering to women (though, frankly, I think that’s a bit of a stretch). But we don’t have to look too far to find ways in which woman are frequently treated in advertising in Western countries which are distinctly disempowering. If we tolerate that in our own society – and we clearly do – is it not a bit hypocritical to get worked up about women being treated in a disempowering way in advertising in other societies?

We may not be all that well-positioned to be casting the first stone here. Just sayin’.

I think you may be missing the point which is that IKEA prides itself on the work it's foundation does to 'empower' women - to then have women rendered invisible in a version of it's official catalogue is a tad off.

Sonics2k

Obviously they were offended the woman wasn't in the kitchen.

krudler

someone should airdrop a load of Ann Summers catalogues over Saudi Arabia for the lulz.

Dades

A key question is who was responsible for removing the women from the images.

If IKEA decided it would be a smart marketing move, that would be a controversial strategy, but not much more.

If however the Saudi officials dictated to the them that in order to trade in SA they had to let those officials dictate what images would be suitable for publication, then it certainly appears that (a) IKEA have compromised their principles, and (b) that Saudi is just as backward and oppressive as we all suspected.

Peregrinus

Well, I take that point. But maybe we ought to be a little bit thoughtful about the values and assumptions which lead us to think using images of women engaged in functions which, in their society, are considered private and personal to sell furniture is "empowering" to the women concerned, or to women generally. It seems to me that we are demanding that the Saudis should uncritically accept the very consumerist, materialist ideology which dominates in the West. Why do we think they should do that?

Amalgam

I stumbled across this a while back. Gives a neat overview of what is taboo in various Islamic countries, when it comes to advertising.

http://designyoutrust.com/2011/04/advertising-in-arabic-way/

I don't really get the problem with eyes, male or female..

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I take that point. But maybe we ought to be a little bit thoughtful about the values and assumptions which lead us to think using images of women engaged in functions which, in their society, are considered private and personal to sell furniture is "empowering" to the women concerned, or to women generally. It seems to me that we are demanding that the Saudis should uncritically accept the very consumerist, materialist ideology which dominates in the West. Why do we think they should do that?

If this was an issue about consumerist, materialist ideology, then the men and furniture would be removed too.

Also, this has nothing to do with "empowering" women. Just about not airbrushing them out of daily life.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I take that point. But maybe we ought to be a little bit thoughtful about the values and assumptions which lead us to think using images of women engaged in functions which, in their society, are considered private and personal to sell furniture is "empowering" to the women concerned, or to women generally. It seems to me that we are demanding that the Saudis should uncritically accept the very consumerist, materialist ideology which dominates in the West. Why do we think they should do that?

I imagine the very fact of possessing an IKEA catalogue shows a certain amount of acceptance of consumerist, materialist ideology. No?

I do get your point about the exploitation of women in western advertising - why we need scantly dressed young women draped over car bonnets it a mystery to me. It's not like they come with the blasted car like (and I imagine a bikini clad person stuck to the bonnet would play havoc with the aerodynamics!)

But do we also need to accept (and enable) the invisibility of women in Saudi Arabia as a condition of doing business there?

mikhail

I really don't see this as being as big an issue as people are making out. It's not even remotely surprising to me that a Saudi business would prefer not to have women in it. It's sad, but it's how things work over there.

The issue is simply whether IKEA are willing to do business under those conditions, and frankly, the answer is going to be yes. The fact is that most of the posts above expressing dismay are written by someone wearing at least one article of clothing made under labour conditions that would be highly illegal in this country. There is so much to be outraged at in the world; this IKEA business is just not a priority.

robindch

mikhail wrote: »

[...] IKEA business is just not a priority.

Their tax affairs should be:

http://www.economist.com/node/6919139

In short, IKEA is registered as a charity in Holland and, as such, pays almost no tax on its large multi-billion turnover.

joseph brand

zenbuffy wrote: »

Well, pretty much as per title - a Saudi franchise of IKEA have been caught out as people have discovered that they photoshopped the catalogue they sent out to remove all of the women.

Well done to that franchise for protecting the delicate sensibilites of men who can't bear to see fully dressed women pretending to brush their teeth while posing in a fake bathroom.

They're promoting the single parent family. In this case, a lone father raising two kids.

Truth is, two men in that photo would be easier for them to handle. Ridiculous.

edanto

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I imagine the very fact of possessing an IKEA catalogue shows a certain amount of acceptance of consumerist, materialist ideology. No?

I do get your point about the exploitation of women in western advertising - why we need scantly dressed young women draped over car bonnets it a mystery to me. It's not like they come with the blasted car like (and I imagine a bikini clad person stuck to the bonnet would play havoc with the aerodynamics!)

But do we also need to accept (and enable) the invisibility of women in Saudi Arabia as a condition of doing business there?

I think my point is not that the attitude to women exemplified by airbrushing them out of catalogues is acceptable. I don't think it is.

My point is that our own attitude to women, as exemplified by what we consider appropriate in advertising, is not obviously better. If we only get worked up about the deficiencies of the Saudi attitude, we expose ourselves to charges of inconsistency and hypocrisy which might be just the teeniest bit justified. And if we think this particular episode reflects adversely only on the Saudis involved, we might not be thinking deeply enough.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think my point is not that the attitude to women exemplified by airbrushing them out of catalogues is acceptable. I don't think it is.

My point is that our own attitude to women, as exemplified by what we consider appropriate in advertising, is not obviously better. If we only get worked up about the deficiencies of the Saudi attitude, we expose ourselves to charges of inconsistency and hypocrisy which might be just the teeniest bit justified. And if we think this particular episode reflects adversely only on the Saudis involved, we might not be thinking deeply enough.

I think that the reaction to the recent Hunky Dory campaigns shows that some people are thinking -and the withdrawal by some high street stores of clothing that sexualises young girls due to public pressure.

Granted - many were content to dismiss the campaign against Hunky Dory as PC cranks and we still have a long way to go but it is all part of the same problem - the dehumanisation of women by either making them nothing but eye candy or rendering them invisible in portrayals of 'everyday' life.

To my way of thinking we cannot separate the two and If IKEA want to continue to present themselves as this 'right-on', family friendly, anti-Racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, equal opportunity organisation they need to deal with this...

joseph brand

mikhail wrote: »

I really don't see this as being as big an issue as people are making out. It's not even remotely surprising to me that a Saudi business would prefer not to have women in it. It's sad, but it's how things work over there.

The issue is simply whether IKEA are willing to do business under those conditions, and frankly, the answer is going to be yes. The fact is that most of the posts above expressing dismay are written by someone wearing at least one article of clothing made under labour conditions that would be highly illegal in this country. There is so much to be outraged at in the world; this IKEA business is just not a priority.

I think the issue is with the infantile carry-on of the religious leaders in Saudi Arabia. A country that has religious police, Mutaween.

I would imagine that IKEA have 'allowed' women to appear in their catalogues in every other country. There is plenty to be outraged at in this world, and the Saudi Autocracy is just one example of massive injustice.

Bannasidhe

Company says airbrushing women out of pictures showcasing company's products goes against its values


Ikea, the global furniture company, has apologised for deleting images of women from the version of its catalogue circulating in Saudi Arabia.

The issue was highlighted on Monday by the free newspaper, Metro, which compared the Swedish and Saudi versions of the catalogue and showed that women had been airbrushed out of otherwise identical pictures showcasing the company's products.

Ikea's Saudi catalogue, which is also available online, looks the same as other editions of the publication, except for the absence of women.

One picture shows a family apparently getting ready for bed, with a young boy brushing his teeth in the bathroom. However, a pyjama-clad woman standing next to the boy is missing from the Saudi version. Another picture of five women dining has been removed in the Saudi edition.

Ikea released a statement expressing regret over the issue, saying: "We should have reacted and realised that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the Ikea Group values."

Women appear only infrequently in Saudi advertising, mostly on Saudi-owned television channels that show women in long dresses, with scarves covering their hair and long sleeves. In imported magazines, censors black out many parts of a woman's body including arms, legs and chest.

When Starbucks opened its coffee shops in Saudi Arabia, it removed the long-haired woman from its logo, keeping only her crown.

Sweden's equality minister, Nyamko Sabuni, said Ikea was a private company that made its own decisions, but added that it also projected an image of Sweden around the world.

"For Ikea to remove an important part of Sweden's image and an important part of its values in a country that more than any other needs to know about Ikea's principles and values, that's completely wrong," Sabuni told the Associated Press.

Ikea Group, one of the many branches in the company's complicated corporate structure, said it had produced the catalogue for a Saudi franchisee outside the group.

"We are now reviewing our routines to safeguard a correct content presentation from a values point-of-view in the different versions of the Ikea catalogue worldwide," it said.

https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/world/2012/oct/02/ikea-apologises-removing-women-saudi-arabia-catalogue

Dades

mikhail wrote: »

There is so much to be outraged at in the world; this IKEA business is just not a priority.

Two points here. Firstly, who exactly is outraged, or even making a big issue out of this? There's a discussion underway, nothing more.

Secondly, there is always a bigger issue. That doesn't mean people can't talk about the smaller ones too, if the interest takes them.

mikhail

Dades wrote: »

Two points here. Firstly, who exactly is outraged, or even making a big issue out of this? There's a discussion underway, nothing more.

Secondly, there is always a bigger issue. That doesn't mean people can't talk about the smaller ones too, if the interest takes them.

Really? It's such a minor issue that it doesn't even provoke outrage, and it's so obviously wrong that no one disagrees particularly. What on earth are you discussing? This is just onanism.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

Two points here. Firstly, who exactly is outraged, or even making a big issue out of this? There's a discussion underway, nothing more.

Give the Daily Mail 48 hours to get onto the case, and you'll have all the outrage you want!

Nodin

mikhail wrote: »

Really? It's such a minor issue that it doesn't even provoke outrage, and it's so obviously wrong that no one disagrees particularly. What on earth are you discussing? This is just onanism.

Bit odd they've apologised then.

Swedish furniture company Ikea has said it regrets that images of women are missing from the Saudi version of its catalogue.
Women are clearly present in corresponding images in the firm's English-language catalogue.
The firm said "excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the Ikea Group values".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19786862

Even odder the Swedish equality minister got her speak in.

Sweden's equality minister, Nyamko Sabuni, said Ikea was a private company that made its own decisions, but added that it also projected an image of Sweden around the world.
"For Ikea to remove an important part of Sweden's image and an important part of its values in a country that more than any other needs to know about Ikea's principles and values, that's completely wrong," Sabuni told the Associated Press.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/02/ikea-apologises-removing-women-saudi-arabia-catalogue

Dades

mikhail wrote: »

Really? It's such a minor issue that it doesn't even provoke outrage, and it's so obviously wrong that no one disagrees particularly. What on earth are you discussing? This is just onanism.

To clarify, I took your post in the context of the replies posted here (where I failed to see any outrage). If you were referring to outrage as found in external sources, I apologise. Onanism? 90% of Boards threads, I'd have thought!

ShooterSF

The cynic in me thinks the apology arriving now is backed by financial concerns rather than ethical ones. They have probably decided that the backlash from their customers in the liberal west would cost them more than an apology and taking down the online catalogue long after the Saudi customers got physical copies without the offending gender.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

The cynic in me thinks the apology arriving now is backed by financial concerns rather than ethical ones. They have probably decided that the backlash from their customers in the liberal west would cost them more than an apology and taking down the online catalogue long after the Saudi customers got physical copies without the offending gender.

I find I have two reactions to this.

1. Well, duh.

2. More cheerfully, Ikea may be entirely profit-driven, but if the ethical reaction of their customers and potential customers means it's in Ikea's financial interests to change their practice, that's still an ethical win, isn't it?

Hotblack Desiato

ShooterSF wrote: »

The cynic in me thinks the apology arriving now is backed by financial concerns rather than ethical ones. They have probably decided that the backlash from their customers in the liberal west would cost them more than an apology and taking down the online catalogue long after the Saudi customers got physical copies without the offending gender.

All the talk is of 'airbrushed' and 'photoshopped' and 'Saudi franchise' as if this was some rogue subsidiary who decided to do their own thing. Funny how when the toothbrushing woman was 'photoshopped' out, there was no trace of her whatsoever, but the lighting in some other parts of the image changed slightly :rolleyes:

It's bollocks, it's plainly obvious that there were two sets of images taken at the time, one for Saudi the other for the rest of the world. It's pretty hard to imagine how that could be done without the knowledge and approval of HQ in Sweden.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

All the talk is of 'airbrushed' and 'photoshopped' and 'Saudi franchise' as if this was some rogue subsidiary who decided to do their own thing. Funny how when the toothbrushing woman was 'photoshopped' out, there was no trace of her whatsoever, but the lighting in some other parts of the image changed slightly :rolleyes:

It's bollocks, it's plainly obvious that there were two sets of images taken at the time, one for Saudi the other for the rest of the world.

Nah, if that was the case you'd expect the poses of the other people in the pictures to change slightly, but they don't.

Besides, photoshipping is easier and cheaper than posing and taking two sets of near-identical pictures. Why wouldn't you photoshop this?

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

I find I have two reactions to this.

1. Well, duh.

2. More cheerfully, Ikea may be entirely profit-driven, but if the ethical reaction of their customers and potential customers means it's in Ikea's financial interests to change their practice, that's still an ethical win, isn't it?

I guess if the only hope of making big business more ethical is to force them to do so with the threat of financial punishment it is. The naive utopia would be one where they do it because they know it's right but I'm not silly enough to expect it even if I do vocally long for it.

Undergod

edanto wrote: »

Comparison pic

Especially cause of the way we stone women who wear anything more than a bikini.