Snag tights

[user95438847]

Not sure what to make of this.

Just came here to see if a thread had been started on this or in style & beauty.

Terrible marketing technique.

They've obviously hidden the name (though I’m sure they know anyone could go and find it as easily as I did) but it’s not some random person, it’s Lily Maynard. Good on her for sticking her head above the parapet.

There are people in the comments saying that she is being racist for questioning whether the person on the left has self-harm scars, and that the person on the right has pecs, not mastectomy scars. There are none so blind as those who will not see, right?!

Virtue signalling via being snippy with your customer base rarely ends well.

Will be watching with interest. And possibly schadenfreude.

It is fairly race-blind / ignorant (don't know if I would use the term racist) to assume that women don't have visible arm hair and therefore it MUST be self-harm scars. I've seen this card and I'm fairly sure it's arm hair. Lots of women, especially women who aren't white, can have very visible arm hair. It's just not shown often in media because it's deemed unattractive by our society's standards.

I don't really think it's a terrible marketing technique either - Snag has always held itself out as diverse and uses a very wide range of body types to advertise products, so I don't think this is going to put off much of their target audience. I don't think this postcard would be a surprise to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with them.

this company looks like they have similar products without all the wokery - but I've not tried them yet.

https://www.bettertights.com/collections/fashion-styles

But… these people exist. They have bodies that need clothing. I don’t think there is anything ‘woke’ about that.

Now I’d have an issue if they were stating that anyone wearing tights was female. Showing men, butch lesbians, a variety of races and sizes etc. does not bother me at all.

How do people have the time and energy to get cross about hosiery marketing?

Why can't they just say that they're for everybody without being rude to someone concerned about young women shown having mastectomy scars (whether that's what the card showed or not).

What other issue makes it acceptable to be so rude to potential customers?

That's what puts me off buying from them in future.

Where is the rudeness in their statement?

It's certainly not as rude as the original tweet which described them as hideous.

Using pictures of young women with mastectomy scars in marketing normalises it, which is what I am sure Lily’s issue is.

None of the other characters had arm hair, so is the artist saying that Indian women (not sure what race she is supposed to be, but some commenters suggested Indian) are especially hairy? Why not just leave off the arm hair for all?
(It doesn’t look like arm hair anyway - who just has one row of really long hairs on their forearm and none on what you can see of their upper arm?)

'Don't let the door hit you on the way out', not a phrase you'd normally use to someone who wasn't thrilled with your marketing.

It's a cartoon, arm hair is often depicted as one row on the forearm in cartoons.

And their USP is about diversity and being inclusive, so why wouldn't they show arm hair on a woman? Lots of women do have visible arm hair because their hair is dark or thick. Why leave it off just to appease people who ignorantly assume arm hair = male or self-harm scares.

I reported a Snag post in July 2021 on Instagram. Nothing has happened, the report hasn't even been actioned.

This is not inclusive advertising, they have a long history of pandering to male fetishism.

And it's a PITA as I actually rate their products very highly. I'm plus size and tall and they are the only tights and chub rub shorts that fit me!

If someone was complaining about the quality of their products or an incorrect order I'd agree with you. But complaining because you don't like the diverse cartoon people on the card that came with your tights from the company that has inclusivity as one of it's USPs?

There's a thread on the original postcard (although not their tweet) here https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4849042-snag-tights?page=3&reply=127669387

They removed my posts on Facebook and then blocked me.

Boycott, boycott, boycott.

I boycotted Snag a while back. I now buy MANZI tights off Amazon.

I have nothing to do with Snag (they kept popping up on my FB feed so I got rid of them), due to the fetishism.

I boycotted them due to their soft-porn ads and their promotion of weird fetish-y stuff like adult men wearing care bears tights. It creeped me out.

They've got a history of being really rude to people who object to their advertising campaigns/porny pics, they're not really keen on polite interaction.

And yet here you are.

They have a private FB group that is FULL of agps in their knickers and tights posing.

It's gross and I refuse to buy them anymore.

I’m very live and let live

they’re free to do their weird porny ads and send out postcards with what looks like a badly drawn picture of a young woman with mastectomy scars

i like their tights so was happy to ignore all this. I don’t really do boycotts

their response to the twitter comments makes it clear that they don’t want to sell tights to boring middle aged women like me. That I can’t overlook

I shall indeed not let the door hit my arse on the way out

I don’t buy things from people who seem to actively dislike me. It’s why I don’t fly with Ryanair