If you’ve been with me since I was at the helm of Revelle, then you know I have strong feelings about society’s obsession with women’s bodies. And the recent explosion of weight-loss medication has been a phenomenon that I’ve been following closely for years. Feel free to peruse some of our old articles — like this one that talks about the cognitive dissonance between trying to love your body but also wanting to lose weight, or this one about what public figures might owe us in regards to disclosing whether or not they’ve taken weight-loss drugs — if you’re curious about our stance over here at Revellations.
The rise of Ozempic has created ripples throughout the “wellness” industry into fashion and everywhere in between. Katie Sturino (great follow, highly recommend) recently talked about conversations she’s been having with fashion brands where they admit that they’re rolling back their extended size ranges and backing away from their previous size-inclusivity objectives. As a plus-size woman in fashion and a massive advocate for women feeling happy and comfortable in whatever bodies they currently live in, Katie has fought long and hard for her seat at the table with these brands as they finally started expanding their ideas on how to view women above a certain size range. I can’t imagine how heartbreaking it must be for her to sit there and listen to them justify their decisions to walk it all back in the shadow of this new era — one where they claim obesity will “cease to exist” as a result of GLP-1 medications (spoiler: it won’t).
Enter the Super Bowl. I hope you all watched it for nothing else if not Kendrick’s epic halftime performance. But if you actually stuck around (for the game, obvs…), you might have noticed a commercial that’s gotten a lot of post-game airtime. And no, I’m not talking about the absolutely disgusting website that was horrendously linked to via an ad by a formerly renowned artist that I will neither name nor give further platform to. I’m talking about the commercial from Hims & Hers touting their weight loss medications as an alternative to big pharma’s Ozempic, Wegovy, and the like.
Hims & Hers created their own versions of these now ubiquitous GLP-1 medications in response to the semaglutide shortage a few years ago. In layman’s terms, the fact that there was a shortage meant that other companies, like H&H, were allowed to create “compounded” versions of the drugs to try to meet the excess demand. It’s important to note that compounded drugs are NOT the same as generic drugs (which are FDA-approved) which many instinctively view them as. Compounding drugs, on the other hand, are essentially custom-built based on existing (approved) drugs for special needs or under special circumstances — like a shortage. The Super Bowl ad in question clearly called out existing pharmaceutical companies for keeping the price of their own drugs sky high in the name of beefing up their own bottom line. They then promoted their own drug as a wallet-friendly alternative that puts customers first rather than profits.
The ad sparked controversy for numerous reasons. And I want to break them down below, as well as add my own concerns into the mix for consideration…let’s get to it.
First, people called out H&H for airing a commercial about weight loss at a time when individuals might be “particularly vulnerable” — when they’re sitting on the couch, maybe gorging on snacks, watching other people exercise. I thought this was an interesting take that was actually brought up by a friend that I was watching the game with at the time (while I gorged on tortilla chips and guacamole). I’ll admit that she had a point. The timing of the marketing push was certainly apt in that it might be precisely the moment where some people weren’t feeling their fittest or healthiest or happiest about their bodies. But I personally think that this could be said of so many types of advertisements that are all, let’s face it, going to be shown to people while they are almost certainly idly on the couch or in bed and likely snacking. That’s not to say that the Super Bowl — one of the few remaining large-scale captive audiences that advertisers can market to all at once — isn’t a heightened version of this scenario. But I’m not sure it necessarily proves to me that a commercial like this was in particularly bad taste compared to say, Ritz (ily Aubrey Plaza) or Doritos (loved the aliens, amirite?) promoting their processed snacks at the same time.
Second, lawmakers in particular called out H&H for not explicitly calling out both the potential side effects of their weight loss drugs as well as the fact that it is a compounded drug (i.e. not FDA approved) in contrast to its name-brand counterparts. I found this criticism particularly interesting because in my opinion it actually masks a greater complaint that is going unsaid — namely that companies like H&H are undercutting big pharma giants with their cheaper, more accessible drugs. H&H responded to the criticism by making it clear that they abided by the letter of the law. And lawmakers responded by saying what they did was actually “exploit a loophole” in how companies are allowed to market these compound drugs.
So here’s my question. Do we have an issue with companies like H&H exploiting loopholes in laws when giant corporations and lobbyists have been doing the same for ages? I’m not personally convinced that I do…perhaps I’m jaded because never in my life has the fast-talking list of side effects word-vomited at the end of a drug’s commercial actually made me feel more safe and secure as an American consumer (don’t get me started on the “don’t take X drug if you’re allergic to X drug” line ::eyeroll:: what a waste of a second and a half). But I honestly believe that this complaint is rooted in the fact that these companies that aren’t backed by massive organizations that line pockets in DC have found a way to give themselves a competitive edge — NOT in actual concern for human beings themselves.
What about the risk of compounded drugs themselves that they call out? Here’s where I’d love someone with more medical knowledge than I have to chime in. But from what I understand and have read, these drugs are only possible to make because their components are FDA approved already. And as stated above the special circumstances that allowed them to be created were a shortage of those drugs in the first place. So capitalism reared its ugly head and allowed small companies like H&H to swoop in on the opportunity, but now that big pharma has ramped up their production they’re suddenly pissed (I mean I’m sure it wasn’t sudden but you catch my drift)? I absolutely see how these compounds are not as thoroughly tested and have their own risks, but claiming that they’re completely untested when they’re made up of FDA-approved components feels like a bit of a stretch to me. The potential risks of taking these products are certainly real, but this feels like something that should be taken up with individuals and their doctors (as with any drug pls!) rather than litigated via a Super Bowl ad.
For me, the issue that I found discussed the least about the commercial was the framing of why people might want to take these drugs — ANY of these drugs — in the first place. We’re all familiar with the common presentation of advertisements: here is the problem, now buy my solution. I felt that H&H did a terrible job in their illustration of the “problem” itself by implying that anyone who is overweight should have a desire to take these drugs. And furthermore that these drugs will unilaterally “solve” this problem for anyone who takes them.
This type of thinking is exactly what’s led brands to tell advocates like Katie Sturino that there’s no point in making plus-size clothes anymore because soon overweight people won’t even exist. Because obviously they’ll all take these drugs the second they are able. Because to exist in a bigger body and be happy is totally inconceivable. The implication that it’s impossible to be content with yourself in a larger body is precisely the type of toxic messaging that we’ve spent so many years trying to eliminate. And if you think H&H wasn’t doing that then I present this screenshot from the ad itself as evidence:
There are very real health risks linked to obesity. And there are legitimate health issues that call for taking GLP-1’s that are not directly weight related. By leading the conversation with weight and self-image rather than health, H&H is encouraging the discourse that being overweight is a choice, a moral failing even, and one that anyone in their right mind should be willing to take drugs to combat — no matter what the potential side effects!
THIS is the controversy that I saw in that Super Bowl ad. Not in the “barely legible” font of its disclosure about the nature of compound drugs being non-FDA-approved. We have to find a way to separate out the real health risks of any extreme weight (insert the discourse around Lily Collins and Charlie McDowell recently welcoming a baby into the world via surrogacy here) from any sort of moral righteousness. This feeling of entitlement we have to be comfortable not just commenting on someone else’s body but making assumptions about their life and how they deserve to be treated has got to stop. And I’d much rather have that conversation in response to this Super Bowl ad than nitpick about what companies are more deserving of reaping the benefits (i.e. profits) of making us feel that certain bodies are somehow less worthy of existing than others.
Leave a Reply