Last year, Sports Illustrated put Barbie on the cover of its annual swimsuit issue, seeking to stoke controversy – and sales – through hashtag-enhanced debate about sexism and body image. This year, a similar debate is under way regarding the appearance in the magazine of the plus-size model Ashley Graham.
Graham’s picture in the magazine is not all it might seem – it is a paid-for advertisement. The company which paid for it, however, is keen to present it as a step forward for “curvy” women and their portrayal in the media.
“Today there is growing enthusiasm for the curvy, natural body type,” said a statement from the swimwear manufacturer swimsuitsforall. “Celebrities are flaunting their curves, major fashion labels are signing curvy models alongside thinner counterparts and Instagram is awash in images of confident curvy women.”
This is not the company’s first campaign linked to the SI swimsuit issue. Last year, it re-created the magazine using plus-size models.
Reaction on social media – as sought by the company under the hashtag #CurvesinBikinis – was mixed:
Never thought I'd say this, but well done, Sports Illustrated. #CurvesinBikinis http://t.co/ImWbPfAnCB
— Heather LBA (@HeatherLBA) February 5, 2015
Ashley Graham is beautiful but this ad just doesn't feel like a big victory for women. Thoughts? http://t.co/eTsQXMv5M1. #CurvesInBikinis
— MEDIAGIRLS (@MediaGirlsOrg) February 5, 2015
This year’s swimsuit issue cover star, in a predictably risqué pose, is the 5ft 10in Hannah Davis. The 24-year-old is also the girlfriend of the retired New York Yankees star Derek Jeter.
Undaunted, Moshe Laniado, chief executive of swimsuitsforall, pressed the point.
“Tastes and body types change over time and curves have never been more ‘in’,” he said. “There is no better way to celebrate and show off than by donning a bikini. When the #CurvesinBikinis ad in Sports Illustrated is released, the world will be watching and they’ll like what they see.”
According to Forbes, the swimsuit issue, first published in 1964, has made more than $1bn since becoming a stand-alone issue in 1997. Nonetheless, this is a difficult time for the venerable magazine, which is owned by Time Inc. Amid ongoing cost-cutting measures, last month it fired its remaining staff photographers.
