Inside the Industry

“Does this look flattering?” It’s one of the most common questions in fashion, yet we rarely stop to consider what the word actually means. On the surface, “flattering” sounds positive. But in fashion, it often serves as shorthand for making the body appear closer to an ideal: slimmer, taller, smaller, more toned, or more proportioned.

Looksmaxxing started in "manosphere" online communities in the mid-2010s and went mainstream in the 2020s. The premise is straightforward: systematically optimise your physical appearance to maximise social desirability.

For most of advertising history, appearance was framed as a women's issue. Early campaigns from brands like Revlon tied femininity to desirability and social worth, and that gendered framing stuck. Men's magazines focused on lifestyle and success rather than looks, which meant men's body image concerns were quietly sidelined — not because they didn't exist, but because acknowledging them didn't fit the script.

Skin-lightening products sit inside a huge, global skincare economy, and they keep selling for a reason that has very little to do with "radiance." The skin-lightening market is estimated at $10.84 billion in 2026, growing to $18.83 billion by 2034. Skincare overall may be a far bigger market, but a $10bn-plus category is not a side quest.

When a brand runs a TV ad, you know what it is. There's a logo, a voiceover, a product shot. Your brain files it under "trying to sell me something" and adjusts accordingly. But when someone you've been following for three years holds up a serum and says it genuinely changed their skin? That lands differently. It feels like a tip from a friend; and that's exactly what makes it so effective, and worth understanding a little better.

Fashion marketing sells a picture of who fashion is for. Every campaign, runway image, and billboard signals who gets centred and who gets left out. When that picture consistently excludes certain bodies, faces, and identities, the impact isn’t superficial. It shapes self-perception, confidence, and whether fashion feels like a space that includes someone at all. When the same types of bodies and identities are shown as the default, they become linked with value, desirability

Menswear loves to act like it’s above body standards. It hides behind words like “tailoring” and “silhouette” while quietly shrinking the definition of who clothes are made for. Vogue Business’ latest size inclusivity reporting makes that pattern hard to deny.

Attractive people in adverts aren’t there by accident. They’re there because our brains treat certain faces and bodies as high-priority information, and advertising is designed to exploit that split-second shortcut. We notice symmetry, health cues, and youth cues automatically. Attention happens before thought, before judgement. Brands use conventionally attractive people because it reliably grabs attention fast, even when the product has nothing to do with beauty.

Retail is shifting. Customers judge brands by what the in store experience signals, not what the brand claims online. Retailers can make thoughtful changes, but without an independent benchmark those changes are hard to communicate and easy to dismiss as performative. That gap is exactly what Index:MH is here to close.

Turning a body type into a brand’s signature is standard beauty marketing, but advertising only one shape plays on our insecurities and tells us there is one look that counts as normal. When we only see one physique in shops and ads, our brains quietly turn it into the standard we compare ourselves to. Fit, slim, curvy is too often portrayed as the perfect measure when multiple body types exist. Showing one body type is not the problem.

Ever stepped into a fitting room and felt your confidence drop instantly? That reaction isn’t personal. It is a well documented response shared more widely than most realise. Millions of shoppers experience insecurity, frustration and disappointment in fitting rooms, and most assume it is an individual problem. In reality, it is the environment itself, intentionally designed to trigger predictable psychological responses.

We have been chasing youth for centuries. From legends of the fountain of youth to billion-pound industries built on the promise of turning back time, the obsession never went away. It only changed form. Today, it is bottled in “anti-ageing” creams, filtered selfies, and airbrushed campaigns that teach us that growing older is a problem to fix.

Feeling good in your skin isn’t the same as promoting a severely underweight frame and calling it a “healthy, toned physique.” In recent campaigns, Zara, Next, and M&S crossed that line. The 2025 M&S ad emphasised the model’s pointed shoes to draw attention to her thin legs, while Zara showcased a drawn, hollow face — a look that pushes unhealthy thinness as a criterion for style.