Beauty ad banned due to over use of retouching

miec

Hi

I came across this article whereby the ASA banned two ads by l'oreal as they were not representative of the product, personally I am delighted that they are tackling this issue. http://www.businessandleadership.com/marketing/item/31647-loreal-ads-with-julia/

I hope to see more of this.

Maybe they'll tackle those stupid mascara ads "lash inserts used"

Malari

Yeah I saw this last week. I did wonder why these two ads in particular. Aren't they ALL like this? I don't think they even need to do all the retouching - I'm sure plenty of women would love to look like, or aspire to look like Julia Roberts without make-up, greasy hair, first thing in the morning

Miss Olenska

Malari wrote: »

Yeah I saw this last week. I did wonder why these two ads in particular. Aren't they ALL like this? I don't think they even need to do all the retouching - I'm sure plenty of women would love to look like, or aspire to look like Julia Roberts without make-up, greasy hair, first thing in the morning

Nope, sorry, I'm quite happy not to look like Julia Roberts. :pac:

Malari

Miss Olenska wrote: »

Nope, sorry, I'm quite happy not to look like Julia Roberts. :pac:

Well, yeah, me too But Julia Roberts without all the retouching is still a good-looking woman is what I was trying to say.

Miss Olenska

Malari wrote: »

Well, yeah, me too But Julia Roberts without all the retouching is still a good-looking woman is what I was trying to say.

She is indeed, but it's her mouth that puts me off. Jeez, talk about Zippy-tastic! :pac:

Anyways, back on topic, I think this is a great move, banning retouching.

LittleBook

What the beauty products companies are effectively saying is ... our products don't work all that well, so we've used airbrushing/illustrated effects/lash inserts/hair extensions.

It's a fecking joke ... a beautiful woman with access to professional styling, lighting, photography and they're still not happy with the result ... and without the air-brushing, they have lovely skin (in make-up).

L'Oreal Adverts Banned

This MP also had an Olay advert banned a couple years back.

Twiggy Advert Banned

One crowd did a successful campaign without re-touching (certified by a notary! )

Make Up Forever's Unretouched Ad Campaign

Miss Olenska

LittleBook wrote: »

It's a fecking joke ... a beautiful woman with access to professional styling, lighting, photography and they're still not happy with the result ... and without the air-brushing, they have lovely skin (in make-up).

Well, Cindy Crawford did once say "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford" lampooning the ridiculous retouching of photos. :pac:

tfitzgerald

To be honest I think retouching is putting it a bit mildly more like a complete makeover saying That the only reason I would kick Julia Roberts out of my bed would be to do her on the floor

cjmcork

Do you know what winds me up (ok, so I've just come off the 'Clothes that you hate' thread - so am in rant mode!).........the ads that say 98% of women agree (and in TEEEENNNYYY print at the end of the screen, it says 168 women tested) - wind up!!! that isn't a decent sample for something you give away for free, let alone something that costs 30 quid!

Ickle Magoo

tfitzgerald, please read the forum charter and reign in on the unnecessary smut please.

Many thanks

cjmcork

Miss Olenska wrote: »

Well, Cindy Crawford did once say "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford" lampooning the ridiculous retouching of photos. :pac:

she said something along the lines of 'I don't even look like Cindy Crawford first thing in the morning'.........'...........

amacachi

I don't get why the mascara etc. ones are still allowed when these are banned.

Ickle Magoo

Yeah, I don't get it.

There are the mascara ones using inserts and hair colour ads which state they were applied by a professional and the models hair has hair extensions. Why bother? I immediately think, right, so my eyelashes/hair won't look anything like that - in fact, your product is so bad you have to use fakery in order to create the finished look that would actually sell...and give that product a wide berth.

Honey-ec

I've no problem with hair colour ads that use natural hair extensions; the extensions are still coloured with the product, so you're seeing a credible likeness of the end colour result. However, if the ad was for a volumising shampoo and it was styled with hair extensions, I'd have a huge issue with it. And since, essentially, that's what they're doing in all the mascara ads, they drive me feckin bats.

Ickle Magoo

Well, if getting your "mojo" back is dependant on expensive extensions and professional stylists and not the product you are advertising then it's a pretty lame endorsement of that product.

iguana

Afaik the ASA only investigates/bans adverts when they have received complaints about them. And it only takes one complaint to initiate the investigation* so perhaps someone complained about the ads which were banned but not the mascara ones.

*I know because I got an ad banned once.

LittleBook

iguana wrote: »

Afaik the ASA only investigates/bans adverts when they have received complaints about them. And it only takes one complaint to initiate the investigation* so perhaps someone complained about the ads which were banned but not the mascara ones.

Correct. Jo Swinson is a Scottish MP and this is not the first product advertisement she's complained about.

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe they'll tackle those stupid mascara ads "lash inserts used"

Actually, they do look at this (when asked to):

ASA Mascara Adjudications

Up until 2007, they didn't even have to say that lash inserts were used.

Of eight complaints made, five were "Upheld" but it's interesting to read the ones which were "Not Upheld" by the ASA:

it was likely that viewers would expect models to have had professional make-up, with false lashes, and hair styling, and that the visuals would be taken in the best possible light to present a clean and flawless image. We considered that viewers were familiar with this approach in cosmetic advertising and would understand that individual results can vary depending on their own lash length and condition.

We understood that post production techniques had been used to enhance the volume of lashes and illustrate the process of lash definition through animation. We did not consider that the use of those techniques alone would necessarily render an ad misleading provided that they did not go beyond what was likely to be achievable for the average consumer when using the product and noted that the on-screen text made it clear that they had been used.

We noted that lash inserts had been used but understood that they were no longer than the natural lash length of the model. We also noted that post production techniques had not been used to alter the length of the lashes. We considered, therefore, that the use of false lashes alone did not accentuate the appearance of lash length.

We noted the consumer testing and digital analysis study LOreal submitted demonstrated that a significant proportion of participants lashes had shown an increase of 80% or more in their visible length. We considered that readers would understand results would depend on the length and condition of their own lashes and that results would vary. We therefore considered that the phrase "up to" had therefore been used appropriately to convey that "up to 80%" was the maximum visible lengthening effect a consumer could expect to achieve. We concluded that the claim "up to 80% longer-looking lashes" had been substantiated.

This one's interesting, makes you think about all those "of 200 women surveyed" disclaimers. Where the text on-screen stated "up to 60% longer looking lashes No7", the ASA concluded:

We noted Clearcasts consultant said the data submitted to him was produced by an acceptable method. We considered that the evidence demonstrated that more than 10% of participants lashes had shown an increase of 60% or more, as required by Clearcast, and the words "up to" were therefore used accordingly.

So if only 10% of participants get a 60% increase in volume, you're allowed to say "up to 60% longer looking lashes". :rolleyes:

I'm a bit torn about this kind of thing.

On the one hand I'd find it hard to sympathise with someone who bought a product where the highly stylised (and sometimes clearly animated) advertisement actually says (legibly) "styled with inserts" and/or "enhanced in post production" and still expected the results from the ad. Does anyone really fall for the "facts" and "science" used in these ads?

On the other hand, I can acknowledge how powerful this kind of advertising can be, particularly to the more impressionable women in society, and how clever the advertisers are at enhancing reality.

Even typing that I feel like I'm patronising them.

amacachi

LittleBook wrote: »

So if only 10% of participants get a 60% increase in volume, you're allowed to say "up to 60% longer looking lashes". :rolleyes:

That's ridiculous, I think even insurance advertising is more honest than that. The lowest "You could save X" I've seen was 48.3% of people saving at least that much.

Aishae

wow i always knew models must be airbrushed or even that the models advertising a shampoo for example might not even have used the product. but the info above is pretty shocking even so.

a product that needs a fake leg up to reach a level theyre satisfied to advertise doesnt necessarily mean its a crappy product BUT it is false advertising in my mind and i also thought it was illegal to do that but then there are so many loopholes to get around that.... (whether its illegal or just unethical)

if theyd spend more on decent products that speak for themselves in the ads rather than paying expensive naturally stunning haired/ skinned celebs and models i think that might speak to people more than 'wow.... i want hair like cheryl cole.... ill go buy that' <- on second thoughts, i dunno. times have changed!

miec

On the one hand I'd find it hard to sympathise with someone who bought a product where the highly stylised (and sometimes clearly animated) advertisement actually says (legibly) "styled with inserts" and/or "enhanced in post production" and still expected the results from the ad. Does anyone really fall for the "facts" and "science" used in these ads?

I don't think that people for all for the science or facts but they do fall for the image in front of them, myself included. I have pretty short eyelashes and for years I was on the hunt for a mascara that would lengthen my eyelashes. I tried them all and none of them really worked, just made my eyes water as the chemicals were too strong. I eventually found the product I like but accept now that there is a lot of false advertising out there and companies that give the appearance of obeying the rules but in reality are using persuasive imagery to con people no longer get my business. I now ensure I read the small print etc but I feel I shouldn't have to do that. As for retouching photographs I think not only are the companies at fault but the celebrities should also accept some responsibility and stop being so fncking egotistic. Isn't it enough they are naturally beautiful, wealthy and successful, etc, etc but they also have their images be retouched to make themselves look youthful etc. I always admired the Jamie Lee Curtis highlighted the hypocrisy of retouching http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/740008/posts

nicowa

LittleBook wrote: »

This MP also had an Olay advert banned a couple years back.

Twiggy Advert Banned[/URL]

To be fair that "retouching" did more than cover the bags under her eyes - it's completely reshaped her jawline.