The other day, I was searching through Cosmopolitan for advertisements. Although I did get distracted by some of the articles, I eventually found what I was looking for: an ad featuring a woman with natural hair. But this wasn’t just any regular ad, and it wasn’t just any woman with natural hair. It was a woman with a beautiful twist-out………but she was naked! That’s right, clothes-less, bare, naked, desnuda, sin ropa, whatever you want to call it. She didn’t have any clothes on! And I know you’re wondering, what was the product being advertised? Well, I’ll tell you. It was a Zappos ad for shoes.
As the picture shows, you see the back of a naked woman in public. Do you really pay attention to the shoes? I’m not sure. What I will say is that I saw a similar ad featuring a white woman in other magazines. Like this model, she is naked, but you see her face as she rides on a scooter through the city.
Let me ask you this question: do you think this ad is a negative representation of natural hair? Is it a positive representation? How are the ads featuring the black model and white model similar and how are they different? Would an ad like this be marketed to readers of Essence? Or any other magazine for black women? If not, why?