American Eagle’s New Unphotoshopped ‘Aerie Real’ Lingerie Campaign

article-2541364-1ABF5C9B00000578-471_634x416 - American Eagle's New Unphotoshopped 'Aerie Real' Lingerie Campaign

The typical lingerie ad usually features a model with flawless, almost unreal skin (sometimes with no real shadows or slightly plastic-like) thanks to extensive treatments in Photoshop… but not American Eagle’s new Aerie Real campaign, which features models of different shapes and sizes without any airbrushing. More details from Daily Mail:

American Eagle is bucking the trend for digitally altered fashion images by launching a campaign with models who are completely non-airbrushed. For the new Aerie Real lingerie campaign, ‘We left everything,’ style and fit expert Jenny Altman told GMA. ‘We left beauty marks, we left tattoos, what you see is really what you get with our campaign.’

The brand hopes that its authentic representation of girls will help young customers embrace their own beauty, instead of striving for the impossible ideal often promoted by the fashion industry. Ms Altman added that since the line is aimed at girls aged 15 to 21, the models wearing these intimates should reflect reality. ‘Our customers represent this great demographic and they don’t really get to see what girls their age really look like,’ she explained.

Online shoppers can also see how a bra will fit on the American Eagle, website, which features models of all shapes and body types sporting the intimates. A banner on the website reinforces the brand’s objective. ‘Time to get real,’ it reads. ‘Time to think real. No supermodels. No retouching. Because the real you is sexy.’

One of the models in the ads proudly flaunts a beauty mark on her stomach, while another reveals a tattoo on her torso that would likely be airbrushed by other labels. In a video for the campaign, one of the models says: ‘What’s really sexy to me, I think, is imperfections and embracing your imperfections.

Our customers represent this great demographic and they don’t really get to see what girls their age really look like. I want to empower other girls. No matter if you have a funny ear or a pimple or a funny freckle, who you are at a deeper level matters.’

Emma Bazilian, a staff writer at Adweek, told GMA that the new campaign sets American Eagle apart from other brands that retouch their photos to perfection. ‘The difference between the Aerie real campaign and, for instance, a Victoria’s Secret campaign, is that Victoria’s Secret … they completely airbrush out every single blemish or stretch mark,’ she said. ‘Hopefully, this is a new age in advertising for female empowerment.’

So far, reaction to the campaign has been overwhelmingly positive, with fans taking to Twitter to voice their enthusiasm. ‘The AerieREAL campaign is SO good!’ wrote one shopper. ‘This is why I love Aerie so much – they make me feel pretty just the way I am.’ Another tweeted: ‘Forget stereotypes and societal standards of unrealistic beauty. AerieReal knows what’s up.’

[springboard type=”video” id=”872249″ player=”skvc001″ width=”500″ height=”400″ ]

See more images from their real campaign next!


article-2541364-1ABF5CA700000578-357_634x415 - American Eagle's New Unphotoshopped 'Aerie Real' Lingerie Campaign article-2541364-1ABF5CB400000578-361_634x413 - American Eagle's New Unphotoshopped 'Aerie Real' Lingerie Campaign article-2541364-1ABF7A2E00000578-901_634x632 - American Eagle's New Unphotoshopped 'Aerie Real' Lingerie Campaign

Untitled-2 - American Eagle's New Unphotoshopped 'Aerie Real' Lingerie Campaign Untitled-3 - American Eagle's New Unphotoshopped 'Aerie Real' Lingerie Campaign

Incoming search terms:

aerie models are ugly, aerie ugly models, jennie runk panty

70 thoughts on “American Eagle’s New Unphotoshopped ‘Aerie Real’ Lingerie Campaign”

  1. Good for them. It’s not earth-shattering, as these models are still just that-“models” with much smaller bodies than the average woman, but at least it’s a step forward in the right direction.

  2. I think this is awesome! I’ve been hoping someone mainstream would do this, and it looks like they have. I think people will more readily recognize natural beauty if they see more of it.

    Comparing yourself, or BEING compared by someone else, to something that’s an altered version of reality– a total illusion– is unhealthy, and it feels awful. All of these girls are beautiful. I hope the line does well, and that this trend spreads.

  3. Aw, those girls are gorgeous! Lingerie’s so-so, but American Eagle’s always been a very unimpressive brand. Kudos to them for trying something new though!

  4. THANK god they are doing this!! I’m so hard on myself for every flaw. Even though I know that even the women in the magazines don’t even look like the woman in the magazines I still some how expect that impossible perfection from myself. I think the more we are bombarded with “plastic” images the more that becomes the new standard… realistic or not.

  5. I hate campaigns like this. Just another crappy attempt to cash in on body positivity. It’s stupid to even pretend companies care about self esteem. If people had any we wouldn’t buy half the crap we do.

    • Just what I was thinking. It’s always about the money. I bet the company simply noticed the amount of positive PR these kinds of “stunts” generate, and the negative PR VS has gotten for their excessive photoshopping.

    • Well yeah.. obviously the point of marketing is to create a positive brand image and to make people buy the products. But since all the firms are going to invest in marketing anyway, isn’t it better if it portrays a positive, relatable image?
      They could have just taken regular models. This would probably not have gotten them as much attention. With this strategy they comme across well PLUS they encourage a healthy body image. I don’t see why that’s such a problem. Win-win I would say!?

      • I disagree because although it might seem “body positive” its still doesn’t cater to a large demographic because these girls are still models that fit into the stereotypical tall, skinny, pretty, white, phenotype. This campaign can help girls who look like them, but what about the rest of them who don’t fit into that mold. This is just a marketing ploy disguised as being body positive when they are really still implementing the same agenda.

      • I totally see your point, and it is a valid one. But for me, personally, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when companies use these kinds of methods to sell their products…

        I’d rather have the “in your face” kind of advertisement, than companies trying to make me believe they genuinely care about improving my self-esteem. Obviously if they did, and succeeded in making every woman feel sexy just the way they are, we would be less likely to feel the need to buy new lingerie all the time to make ourselves feel sexier. Which for them, would be more of a loss-loss. Though this is just my personal feeling about this, I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything.

    • Actually, when Dove went ahead with their campaign a while ago, their sales dropped hard – very hard. They kept going despite losing a lot of money. They started the trend and now American Eagle somewhat follows it. In the long run I believe this will be more and more popular and that’s when money will start pouring in.

      • I had to check this out. Seems one of the reasons Dove’s campaign bombed, is that their digital artist admitted to having photoshopped the living crap out of the women they claimed were 100% unretouched! Call me cynical, but the only part of this that surprised me was the admission..

    • I dk, I think that making it sound as though they’re doing such a huge favor to us by giving us un-photoshopped models is condescending, sure. BUT Aerie caters mostly to teenage girls and – maybe i’m naive – but i legit didn’t know about photoshop/the extent of photoshop in advertising/magazines until i came to this site a few years ago.

      i do think it’s healthy to let teenage girls know that all the images they see are not authentic – all of us have scars, wrinkles or rolls, stretch marks, freckles, birthmarks, etc. and it doesn’t take away from our beauty – in fact, those marks of humanity and mortality make us evermore beautiful.

      i wish they wouldn’t do it without speechifying at us, but all the same, i’m glad to see a brand that’s not afraid to let a handful of gorgeous young models go unphotoshopped because yeah.. why should those girls be photoshopped? they’re beautiful.

  6. of course the girls are still beautiful&photogenic, and there was probably body make up involved but they still look human.i think it’s a very nice campaign, they showed in video women with different body types/sizes, though not v.big range but still some, and i liked in some pics- flat stomach, in others a pooch, cos it’s natural and i see no ugliness in it.And finally my eyes don’t hurt cos of terribly sharp&plasticky skin. But the coolest thing that a brand shows how the same bra fits women with different sizes cos that matters to customers, of course it doesn’t mean choosing a bra will be easy for everyone now (shape&other things matter too) but it’lll give many more confidence in buying one cos it’s a bit easier to imagine a bra on your size while looking at someone the same size wearing it, cos we may put models on pedestal for some body or beauty but by the end of the day it’s about the clothes they model.

    • i went to check out the website feature, selected my bra size, and the girl modeling it looks about 4 sizes bigger than me all over and the bras didn’t seem to be fitting her correctly. so not helpful at all! lol. the best thing to do, imo, is go to a high-end bra shop to get measured (not VS) and then just buy bras at stores, not online- you never really know how its gonna fit until you try it on.

  7. Good. IM so tired over too much airbrush, and that involves a lot of things. We all know that Kate Moss doesn’t look anything like her ads, we all know Candice Swamepoel doesn’t have an D-cup. We all know that Madonna and Demi Moore have wrinkles, even if you can’t find any in the ads. I think it’s ridiculous. So great with something “new” even if it feels a bit outdated.

  8. I think this is a nice idea, although really it is just a marketing ploy. Keeping in mind that they are owned by the same company that owns hollister and abercrombie it seems like a bit of a an empty gesture.

  9. its awesome,here in germany is a fashion magazine who only uses real women for their magazne.u cant model for them if youve ever have been in a model agency,like u cant be a model and no matter what size,its great,so i also love this

  10. Overphotoshopped pictures with plastic skin don’t look attractive anyway, it ruins the picture and the beauty of the girl.
    Also it makes them look unreal so as for me I can’t feel envy towards a girl that doesn’t look like an actual human being. Whereas pictures with girls who have small human flaws but still are gorgeous will have much more of an effect on me.

  11. While I agree that it’s nicer to see real skin (with beauty marks, folds etc) rather than fake airbrushed stuff, I don’t see how this is supposed to make me feel better? Even *without* photoshop, these models are naturally very slim, tall, and gorgeous. So in an odd way it makes me feel worse (that they can look this good naturally whereas I can’t due to my inherent features/body type). Although when buying clothes I don’t pay attention to the model, I choose based on how it looks and fits. Overall this is a PR move and smart on their part – the photos are still pretty and more relateable to girls in Aerie.

  12. Um… okay.
    Am I supposed to give them an A for the effort of not photoshopping already beautiful thin girls who have pretty great bodies? A pat on the head? Go purchase underwear from them?
    I ‘get’ the concept. It just seems like a massive attention grab, though. I don’t think AE has ever really overphotoshopped their models, so it seems just like a ploy to get people to look at them and go in Aerie rather than VS to get their cheeky cotton panties. Which, I was going to do anyway (they’re cheaper) but… come on. I feel like they’re trying to pander to us, in a way.
    Also, I hate when people point out what a great job they did and then expect you to stroke their ego for their efforts and reward them. It’s not cute.

  13. Lol, notice how they’re all still thin. I don’t get companies like this; either they fully embrace what they’re promoting (“to see what girls their age really look like,’ ), or don’t do it at all. If this message was so important to get across, why aren’t there any girls bigger than a size 6-8? Seems contradictory to me.

    Although, I never fall for these “real-ness” campaigns (personally, I don’t care about VS using models, I don’t know if it’s because I too am skinny or what, but I don’t). This is just a company trying to find a new gimmick to sell stuff; perhaps they’re competing with VS Pink, who has supermodels. Maybe they think this will sell better, I don’t know. Call me cynical, but it’s all about sales in the end, not about “female empowerment” or making their customers feel good about themselves. I think they’re all getting played here…

    • Actually Jennie Runk (neon green bra and underwear) is a plus model who is a size 14/16. The model who is in the green top and blue underwear is a plus model with JAG as well.

      • I had to go back and look really hard for both of them. See, that’s the thing: okay so they have them, but why are they like 80% covered up? Seems like AE wants to have their cake and eat it too. Really, I don’t care about the “message”, I’m not put off by who is modelling the clothes I but at all. I’m thin anyway, but if I wasn’t, I still wouldn’t care about “seeing my size represented”. I just think that if they have this supposed do-gooder message, they need to commit to it, or it’s all BS.

    • …to the point that it is HILARIOUS now. if you want exclusively to look at size 0 women, go to skinnygossip or other pro ana sites. don’t come criticising here with your holier than thou attitude of how not photoshopping women is pandering but photoshopping women bigger than a size 6 to 8 to be slightly smaller is ‘fake’. so which is it lc? you are a terribly insecure person, taking out your own dissatisfaction on healthy, curvy women while downplayinh how ill some super skinny celebrities look. i’m sick of your toxic posts on this site!

        • …really? That’s the coward’s way out. Can’t discuss things frankly, huh? What was so offensive about what I said? I don’t like personally commenting to one person but your comments on EVERY non-skinny women’s posts, be it Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, Robin Lawley, Katy Perry, Kate Upton, even Kelly Brook (who pretty much has the perfect hour-glass figure) etc. etc. are really nerve-grinding.

          Just stating you don’t like their figures would be enough. Calling them unattractive and how they are not good enough is just an awful thing to do constantly.

          • Wow, I really called these women “non attractive and not good enough”?! Please, please, show me where! I’d love to find out something I *didn’t* write, how cool would that be! Your comment was deleted because you were TROLLING, do it again and I’m sure it will be AGAIN. If the things I say are nerve grinding, don’t read them. Simple as that. I honestly don’t say anything more offensive than some people say about skinny women, so get over it. If I were to say I don’t like someone’s body, like Kelly Brook’s, I would just say so like I did. There’s no reason why I can’t say something like that. People say it about Leann, Candice, etc.
            Again, it seems my comment went RIGHT over your head. Yep, just flew RIGHT over it haha. Good job missing the point again! Don’t comment to me unless you know what you’re talking about, okay? Thanks.

          • Stop being so dramatic. No one can say anything ‘negative’ about any of your comments without you accusing them of stalking you, being obsessed with you, picking on you or you comparing your comments to others peoples comments: “my comments aren’t as bad as some others, etc.”. Get over yourself. Almost everyones comments get criticized at some time or other and sometimes *gasp* more than once! Not everyone whines or engages in pity parties the way you do. And don’t bother commenting to me because I’m sure it will be your same whiny nonsense playing the victim as usual. Grow up a bit & learn to communicate instead of accusing. Okay? Bye.

          • Hahaha YOU are being dramatic. What was that nonsensical rant about that you wrote, you know the one that got you DELETED? Yeah. Half the time they are stalking me and just bullying, because the attacks are *completely* unwarranted; like you, right now. Sorry but you still sound crazy, I haven’t done ANYTHING to warrant this attack. Nothing at all. The fact that you pulled something out of thin air to attack me on (which wasn’t even true, haha and you could not prove me wrong, thanks!) just further proves right what I just said. Thanks for walking into that one, like 10 different times.

          • I posted the 1st 2 comments but not the 3rd one. hence, i’m not ‘a’. it must ‘go completely over your head’, as you like to say so much, that more than one person could dislike your comments.

            why do you think you’re so important that i’ll trawl through old posts to ‘prove you right’ to ACTUALLY stalk your comments? i do distinctly remember you calling kim kardashian reprehensible or ugly, something to that effect. also constantly calling kelly brook untoned, flabby, etc. that’s what i meant when i referred to you calling her not good enough. she’s not worthy of any admiration according to you, which is just not true. beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. accept that and stop harshly criticising every woman who doesn’t match your tiny perspective of what beauty is.

            being opinionated is one thing. being roughly critical is a whole other story. learn to phrase yourself better.

          • She is untoned. It’s true. I said it. I don’t like her body, and I don’t have to. You probably don’t like Candice S.’s body, because it’s probably “sickly” and “gross”, for all I know. And you don’t have to like it. Goodness haha if we can’t even make such comments as “untoned” on this site then the PC-ness has gotten waaaaaay out of control. I phrase myself just fine, I never said she was “fat”, “gross”, “unsightly”, a “pig” or ANYTHING of that crude, rude nature. I have heard far worse things about skinny women, LOL, please, let’s not even GO there. “Manly”, “ugly”, “eww” “gross”, to name a FEW (and I quote, make no mistake).

            Oh, and yes, actually everything still went over your head because whether or not you wrote those first 2 comments doesn’t matter, I still said nothing derogatory on this thread; period, so you have no business attacking me. Lol, seriously…get a life.

          • I am not the same person as the other commenter. Please stop already. Your accusations of “stalking” & “bothering” by the mysterious “they”(a bit paranoid) are really annoying & quite sad. Perhaps it makes you feel important to accuse others of “stalking “you, perhaps wishful thinking, but you are just making yourself look foolish. I am sure you will continue desperately checking this page all week to see who is listening to you, but I won’t anymore. Judging from other comments you have left, you can continue this nonsensical exchange forever-one of the advantages of having no life, I guess.
            Have a good life & goodbye.

          • Yeah seriously, just get a life.

            What are you even TALKING about anymore? This has all been rather circualr and unimportant, hasn’t it? You tried to pick on me and troll me and I wouldn’t let it happen. Lol.

            Seriously. Get a life. And something, you know, PRODUCTIVE to do with your time and energy. Trust me, it’s the best advice anyone could ever give you.

  14. I don’t care if this is just a PR stunt- I’m happy that they did it. Sure, these are still beautiful models with professional makeup and photo-shoot quality lighting, but it’s a step in the right direction. Their goal is sell clothes. If you want to see photos of regular girls just scroll through your instagram feed 😉

  15. Yeah, no photoshop, just full make-up (“barely there” make-up is not the same as no make-up”), strategic poses and very flattering lighting. But it’s a start. And in all honestly, while I don’t photoshop my own pics (1) because I suck at photoshop and 2) because even if I didn’t I’d die of embarrasment if anyone found out) I also try to use the best light, etc. So yeah, better than most.

    • But small women exist. What’s wrong with showing that off the runway? Even catalogue models are tall and slim, just not in the way that VS girls are. That’s still realistic.

        • This is a happy medium, imo. They’re not showing skinny 17 year olds, whom even I can’t relate to, and they aren’t the size 8 “This is plus?!” models that the plus industry seems to be made up of.

    • More like 5’7 115 lbs 😉 And at least 1 Aerie model – Nina Agdal – has modeled for VS. Probably others I’m not aware of. These 2 brands cater to the same demographic. VS goes for a sexier glam look and Aerie for a more natural look.

    • I don’t think they tried anything new except they said hey we will use the girls with clichéd tattoos and not use any concealers so u can def stay up all night because dark circles are a plus…did I miss something?

  16. The best part of this campaign are the changes they have made to the bra dept. on the website. When you go to the page and search by size, they show a model with you band/cup size wearing the bra. It’s a game changer for me. I’m pretty busty (34 dd) and seeing a bra on the typical 32a model is not super helpful. Neither is VS’s strategy of painting cartoon cleavage on their b cup models.

  17. The girls look really cute and I like the idea although I think in reality it isn’t as earth shattering as it is marketed to be.

  18. The comments on this website are so bipolar. Jennifer Lawrence is too chubby but then Kelly Brooks is perfect. Airbrushing is awful for marketing but not airbrushing is a desperate attempt for publicity. The only reason I come to this website anymore is to guess what the overall reaction to a picture or headline would be, and I’m never right. And then it makes me thankful I’m not a dude… I can see why they’d begin to believe they could never make you ladies happy and why they haven’t been able to ‘read your minds.’

    • You’re right, you can’t please everybody. Because women are human beings with a diversity of thoughts and opinions, despite your sexist tripe about dudes not being able to ‘read our minds’ lol like we all share 1 brain.

    • i think part of it is that only people who have a strong opinion about a certain post will comment. the other 90% who don’t really care or don’t have anything new to say refrain from posting. the comments are not a representative pool of opinions imo.

  19. That girl in the second picture is seriously beautiful. Very exotic looking, lucky girl! The one in the small pic with the pink knickers on has a great bum! I personally don’t like photos when they are too overshopped (as they are in most things these days). The skin starts to look plastic and unreal…I don’t feel that the images are sexy because I feel like I am looking at a picture of a doll. I’m sure lots of people do like ‘shopped photos because I think you build up a kind of immunity to them.

    Anyway, the girls in these pics look far prettier than models that are over the top photoshopped imo. I think it’s a great step…however it’s also nothing new. Magazines and companies come out and do this every so often to get more followers. I will be very happy if they continue along this route…however only time will tell.

  20. This is interesting as all the details that would’ve been retouched catch my eye. The neck of the first girl, probably smoothing out the skin tone etc. for her. The stomach of the girl in the second picture would’ve been retouched for sure, too. And the girl with the hearts on her eyes, they would’ve made her b❆❆bs rounder, fuller and symmetrical. This actually helped me personally as you can really see from this what little details are being regulated. It’s not really about “natural” and “fake” but about reality and fairy tale.

  21. how is this supposed to help young girls??? These little girls are still so tiny and now other young women will see this and feel more pressured to be perfect. Why not choose real women instead. I am not a fan.

  22. Yeah, for the first year or so, right? Then they ended the campaign because sales were dropping. Which I guess either means their campaign actually worked (a bit too well!), OR people started seeing through their BS.

  23. i love this. natural beauty. especially love the part about the tattoos. wish it didn’t have to be such a big deal, but that’s mainstream media for you. models are skinny but they’re not “scary thin” (hate that phrase, just struggling to convey a type of model we see frequently, hopefully you know what i mean) so i think that reinforces their message.

  24. as someone who works as a pro retoucher, i can assure you that these pictures have been edited – not only has the skin and fabric been perfected, but the colours were corrected to match one another. to say anything else is a lie and an attempt to mislead the audience and gain their trust. PATHETIC.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.