Is 'Empowerment Marketing' Better Or Just More Advertiser Bullcrap?Kelly Faircloth8/14/14 2:50pmFiled to: badvertisingunder armouramerican apparelmisty copelandempowerment marketing531EditPromoteShare to KinjaToggle Conversation toolsGo to permalink After decades of telling women they're fat and they smell and their faces are busted, advertisers have finally figured out that—wonder of wonders!—sometimes a positive message strikes a better tone. But just how pleased should we really be with "empowerment marketing"? Advertisement The New York Times contrasts two recent ad campaigns: The Under Armour video became an online viral sensation as an inspirational example of conquering body image issues, and the American Apparel campaign incited controversy for its Lolita-esque character, displaying sexualized images of women styled to look like teenagers. The campaigns are based on two different marketing strategies — one of "empowerment," and the other "inadequacy." In advertising to women today, is one strategy more effective than the other? That Misty Copeland ad really was great. It presents a powerful image of perseverance, and it's a respectful portrayal of a talented, athletic woman.