emotional moves – usually involving announcements featuring the phrase ‘no longer’ – focus on the tip of the iceberg and are less concerned about the underlying motivations. In this case, the deep-seated reasons some influencers edit their bodies in their social media posts. Refusing to work with influencers who edit their bodies won’t address the question of why even those who are idolised for their natural beauty feel the need to alter their image (think of Miranda Kerr’s photoshop scandal). Underdiagnosed problem, wrong solution Perhaps we can ask a few questions to better understand the problem a brand like Ogilvy is trying to address: Is it body image editing that needs to be addressed, or is society dealing with a body perfectionism problem?Aren’t we confusing symptoms with the problem if we’re focusing on influencers’ need to edit their bodies and not the body-shaming problem?Has our problem identification been myopic or comprehensive? Have we explored all dynamics of the problem before jumping to the solution? Even if we have got the problem right (which in this case we haven’t), are we offering effective and proactive solutions, contributing towards fixing the problem long term? Again, it seems, we are offering the wrong prescription for an underdiagnosed problem.  Passive vs proactive Offering passive solutions has become the new normal when the world of business engages in social issues. It is a ‘stay out of trouble’ approach. Brands disassociate themselves from trouble as soon as an opportunity has turned into a problem or appears likely to become a problem. We see this when brands cut ties with their celebrity ambassadors as soon as things go wrong: Nike and many other brands cutting ties with Tiger Woods and Tag Heuer cutting ties with Maria Sharapova are among the examples. Ogilvy’s move is similar to Nike or Tag Heuer’s moves: pausing, stopping, cutting ties, and blaming others while taking no responsibility, protecting their brand image. Focusing on the tip of the iceberg not only won’t fix the problem, it can also create greater risks and worse consequences. It holds no educational value for the community. Ogilvy, as one of the most creative agencies in the world, could instead come up with proactive solutions focused on educating society and the target audience. By creating content that would focus on the problem, rather than attacking and blaming certain groups of the community, Ogilvy could increase awareness of the negative impacts of body shaming and body perfectionism, while highlighting and featuring some of the influencers these problems affect.  Businesses are very experienced at coming up with short-term campaigns that involve tasks like launching a product or service, sales advertising, or brand image communications and messaging. However, deep social issues are different to the usual business problems. They require more long-term solutions and greater planning over time. Behaviour change won’t happen with a one-off announcement. It requires continuous commitment.  Speak to the target audience – in their language While the wider general public may support targeting influencers, it factors out the role of followers and their preferences. Those the brand is seeking approval from may not be very supportive of such a move. When a brand fails to adopt the tone and language of the target audience, and fails to make a convincing argument to the target audience, it can only go so far in influencing attitudes, perceptions, and preferences.  We should focus on the problem, instead of just chasing the symptoms and offering solutions to limit and reduce them. At least Ogilvy could focus on limiting the triggers of the feelings that lead to body editing and body image issues, by targeting social media trolls.