Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LOreal advert banned in UK - ASA ruling  (Read 9601 times)
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4062



« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2012, 01:45:34 PM »
ReplyReply

The thing you guys are missing is that if a company's advertising is false, word gets out pretty quickly, and once the word gets around the company is hurt a lot more seriously than any hurt that could come from government meddling or boards of busybodies. This kind of thing is self-regulated -- by the market, and every time the government gets involved, or boards of busybodies are empowered to regulate the market, things invariably get worse. There always are unforseen side-effects. Adam Smith made all that clear a long time ago, but bureaucrats and people with exaggerated self-esteem never seem to be able to learn from experience.
But what's "false"? These creams/lotions/potions are expensive and are advertised as producing near-magical results. Gullible idiots (and there's no shortage of them) who buy them will expect, and perceive, an improvement in their skin when they use them.

Blatantly untrue claims are easily shown to be false; but claims such as "this product will make your skin look much better" are simply too vague to be falsifiable.

Jeremy
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2012, 01:57:14 PM »
ReplyReply

... But the UK isn't the only place with boards of busybodies ...

But the ASA aren't a board of busybodies. Oh I'm sure that unscrupulous advertisers might want to typify them in that way, but the reality is that in any decent society, the people have the right to be free of some things, just as much as they should be free to do others. Being free from misleading advertising is one of those freedoms.

I appreciate that US has traditionally had more than its fair share of snake-oil salesmen, and maybe they are considered with some affection in the US, but here in the UK we don't much like such people, and if peddlars of a product, through lies or other means, attempt to deceive consumers, the ASA is there to step in & stop them.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6438



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2012, 02:06:46 PM »
ReplyReply

But what's "false"? These creams/lotions/potions are expensive and are advertised as producing near-magical results. Gullible idiots (and there's no shortage of them) who buy them will expect, and perceive, an improvement in their skin when they use them.

That's the placebo effect. As long as they perceive an improvement why rob them of that feeling?

...in any decent society, the people have the right to be free of some things...

Yes. They have the right to be free from coercion by people who are sure they have all the answers to everything. The Western world used to be pretty clear on that point, but that understanding seems to be dying out.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 02:12:24 PM by RSL » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8245



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2012, 04:04:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The thing you guys are missing is that if a company's advertising is false, word gets out pretty quickly, and once the word gets around the company is hurt a lot more seriously than any hurt that could come from government meddling or boards of busybodies. This kind of thing is self-regulated -- by the market, and every time the government gets involved, or boards of busybodies are empowered to regulate the market, things invariably get worse. There always are unforseen side-effects. Adam Smith made all that clear a long time ago, but bureaucrats and people with exaggerated self-esteem never seem to be able to learn from experience.

Hum... right, we have seen with our favorite banks and giant IT companies consolidation how effective a free market can be...  Grin

The reality is that consumers as individuals always lose in front of large corporations. Associations and Gov are representatives of the consumers with the ability to keep things more or less fair.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6438



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2012, 04:28:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, that's interesting, Bernard, but unsupported assertions like those really call for support. How about some documentation for what you're saying. Also, which "corporations?" Apple? Adobe? Nikon? Canon? At the end of 2008 I closed the doors on a small corporation of mine that provided inexpensive software to all sorts of people. Is that the kind of corporation you have in mind? What, exactly, are you talking about? Do you have any idea what a "corporation" is?
Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2012, 04:48:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes. They have the right to be free from coercion by people who are sure they have all the answers to everything.

You'll have to explain the relevance of that comment. I'm not sure where the coercion is here, nor where anyone is claiming all the answers.
Logged

BFoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2012, 07:40:50 PM »
ReplyReply

So you're in favour of corporations being allowed to lie and deceive in advertising ?
An unusual point of view.

priceless....
Logged

dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2012, 09:12:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you have any idea what a "corporation" is?

Is this a serious question?  I ask because it sounds a little condescending, but maybe you're serious.
Logged

Dean Erger
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3562



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2012, 11:22:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The thing you guys are missing is that if a company's advertising is false, word gets out pretty quickly, and once the word gets around the company is hurt a lot more seriously than any hurt that could come from government meddling or boards of busybodies. This kind of thing is self-regulated -- by the market, and every time the government gets involved, or boards of busybodies are empowered to regulate the market, things invariably get worse. There always are unforseen side-effects. Adam Smith made all that clear a long time ago, but bureaucrats and people with exaggerated self-esteem never seem to be able to learn from experience.
That's a very positive, but sadly unrealistic view. You repeat a lie often and loudly enough and it becomes the 'truth'.

A few people who give a damn or know enough about a specialist subject may be able to pick up on 'mistruths' but the vast majority of people will simply be misled. It has to be a pretty heinous advertising crime to get any media attention. Don't forget the majority of the media also relies on advertising to pay the wages so it tends not to bite the hand that feeds. A lot of US ads would simply not be allowed in the UK by the ASA, yet there is no outcry there about their mendacity. Apple frequently get their knuckles rapped and either have to withdraw ads or modify them to be allowed to get them shown here.

Currently the US food industry is lobbying by using the freedom of speech angle to try and allow them to make any spurious claim they want about their product. Doubly devious as the same industry clamps down on anyone who dares to criticise or make negative comments about food products and astonishingly the food industry is able to silence views they do not like in many states. Their profits come before the 1st amendment!
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3562



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2012, 11:53:28 PM »
ReplyReply

That's the placebo effect. As long as they perceive an improvement why rob them of that feeling?
They are simply being robbed of their money actually and there is no placebo effect at work here. As if it doesn't make you look better, then you don't think you look better and as makeup is done for other's benefit anyway, there certainly not going to be any placebo effect on those who didn't apply the 'magic' makeup. I don't think you really understand how placebos work.

Quote
Yes. They have the right to be free from coercion by people who are sure they have all the answers to everything. The Western world used to be pretty clear on that point, but that understanding seems to be dying out.
Not allowing companies to lie, mislead and rip off their customers has nothing to do with coercion of the people.

You should take a look at advertising from the 'good old days',that you seem to be harking back to. Appallingly sexist, outright racism or making out that nasty toxins were good for you was the norm.

This is a fantastically stupid ad. As whilst it tries to demean women, it actually says all men are irresponsible.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
RawheaD
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2012, 12:43:27 AM »
ReplyReply



Now I understand why you call yourself rawhead.

Maybe you also live in a lith world of nothing but line-negs. Wow!

Rob C


Making ad hominem attacks on somebody's internet handle name is such an effective means of getting your point across, isn't it?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 12:55:48 AM by rawhead » Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4062



« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2012, 02:48:38 AM »
ReplyReply

This is a fantastically stupid ad. As whilst it tries to demean women, it actually says all men are irresponsible.

It isn't "stupid". It's of its time and expresses a view which we now regard as absurd but which was then both widespread and considered respectable.

It doesn't say that all men are irresponsible. The sentence "Woman's suffrage would double the irresponsible vote" merely implies that the same proportion of women are irresponsible as of men (and that there would be equal numbers of enfranchised men and women).

It's probably not what they wanted to say, but as a proposition I think it's probably pretty close to the truth.

Jeremy
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2012, 03:10:04 AM »
ReplyReply


Making ad hominem attacks on somebody's internet handle name is such an effective means of getting your point across, isn't it?




Obviously.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2012, 03:36:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, using retouching to make someone look good in fashion or advertising is generally not a problem and that is not what rawhead is objecting to.
But when an image is used to deliberately mislead about what a product can actually do, that's very different. It is the same as a car advert claiming the new Ford or Audi whatever can do 200mpg when it manages 40mpg. Words have been manipulated instead of the image, but basic the lie is the same.

You see adverts here for mascara where, for a short a time as the advertisers can get away with, they are now forced to mention that the thickening abilities shown on screen have been digitally enhanced. Why? Because the product simply cannot do what it is claimed, as otherwise no enhancement would be needed. And I think they're not going to be able to get away with doing that much longer either.




"We're talking fashion/makeup here; there's probably not a female in the civilized world who buys into the images. Women have to/want to use makeup, and so they purchase the type that tickles their fancy and pocket with the right frequencies. They are going to buy something to apply, and since these products are all fairy dust, and women basically know that, it's all part of the international beauty game."


jjj,

I quote myself, above, in order to show again why I think these complaints in makeupland are pointless: nobody believes them, it's a classical case of crimes without victims. Each buys within her price - the bigger the Gucci the more she might choose to waste/enjoy/squander, but it's her call, not any "busybody's" to make. Heysoos! some folks still smoke!

Women are going to buy something: they might as well buy what amuses them or gives them an inner glow of sorts. The male views are so different, as anybody who's had wife, daughter, mother, aunt (very useful, these) will know. Or should at least have been observant enough to know.

It has nothing to do with food, nothing to do with car safety, flying across oceans or renting holiday accommodation on spec; it's all about fantasy! Just as long as nothing dangerous is being peddled, then let the game play on and keep the business world and employment afloat. Hell's bells, what do most of us do that makes keeping our livelihood going more valid and worthwhile to mankind than selling another form of dream? What do you want to do - tell all women that they might as well give up and return to the barn, that all we guys need is a couple of shots of scotch and then any old chick will do? For both the sexes, let the dreams live on!

Lighten up, guys.

Rob C

Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3562



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2012, 10:48:52 AM »
ReplyReply

It isn't "stupid". It's of its time and expresses a view which we now regard as absurd but which was then both widespread and considered respectable.
That doesn't mean the views were not stupid, just because they were from a different time. Besides it was the maths that was the particular dumb thing.

Quote
It doesn't say that all men are irresponsible. The sentence "Woman's suffrage would double the irresponsible vote" merely implies that the same proportion of women are irresponsible as of men (and that there would be equal numbers of enfranchised men and women).
Whether it is all men or same proportion of men being useless, it completely and utterly undermines their idiotic claim and makes men look anything but superior.


Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3562



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2012, 11:09:18 AM »
ReplyReply

What do you want to do - tell all women that they might as well give up and return to the barn, that all we guys need is a couple of shots of scotch and then any old chick will do? For both the sexes, let the dreams live on!

Lighten up, guys.
Selling false hope and charging money for something that does not do the advertised job is not victimless as you think. Extracting money under false pretences is simply a con trick. No-one here is denying people the chance to buy make up if they want to. We're simply objecting to being misled.

As for the more invidious side of constantly presenting unattainable skin textures or body shapes that only exist in CGI or via photoshop as being real. There's a big difference between looking glamorous and not looking human. Which does impact on the real world and leads to unrealistic expectations on how one should look in a way that did not use to happen. If it didn't have any effect, then that means advertising doesn't work. Which is patently not true.
This reminds of one of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard. One of the tactics cigarette companies used to object to the ban of tobacco advertising was to argue that advertising didn't work, so they should be allowed to continue spending millions of pounds on something that made no difference.  Huh
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4062



« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2012, 11:55:28 AM »
ReplyReply

That doesn't mean the views were not stupid, just because they were from a different time.
Ah, the arrogance of modernity. What a wonderful thing it is.

Besides it was the maths that was the particular dumb thing. Whether it is all men or same proportion of men being useless, it completely and utterly undermines their idiotic claim and makes men look anything but superior.
It would appear that your understanding of arithmetic is lacking.

There can be no real doubt that doubling the franchise will very probably double the number of irresponsible people allowed to vote. While the "menace" sentence is, to modern eyes and I suspect even at the time, verging on the hysterical, the assertion that "woman's suffrage would double the irresponsible vote" is disputable only by a similarly sexist assertion that a lower proportion of women is irresponsible than of men. Experience does not suggest that to be true.

Jeremy
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2012, 01:09:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Selling false hope and charging money for something that does not do the advertised job is not victimless as you think. Extracting money under false pretences is simply a con trick. No-one here is denying people the chance to buy make up if they want to. We're simply objecting to being misled.

As for the more invidious side of constantly presenting unattainable skin textures or body shapes that only exist in CGI or via photoshop as being real. There's a big difference between looking glamorous and not looking human. Which does impact on the real world and leads to unrealistic expectations on how one should look in a way that did not use to happen. If it didn't have any effect, then that means advertising doesn't work. Which is patently not true.
This reminds of one of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard. One of the tactics cigarette companies used to object to the ban of tobacco advertising was to argue that advertising didn't work, so they should be allowed to continue spending millions of pounds on something that made no difference.  Huh




jjj- I guess we just have to agree to disagree

I don't think women are fooled by cosmetics ads for a minute. I think they do want to play games and I do think that they know that it's all a game, and don't get fooled at all. That's my view on makeup advertising.

Regarding excessive use of PS on body shapes, then yes, I agree that's a whole different ballgame and can have unfortunate results. Unfortunate and unrealistic dreams or ideals can damage both women and men, the one because she may feel less than good about herself, and from the male point of view, he may also have unreal expectations if all he knows is men's mags (for want of a better description). Which brings me to implants etc., where I feel there should be an absolute ban on anything of that type that isn't brought about by need due to accident, mastectomy or birth defect.

Further on breast implants - I can't image a greater let-down than discovering the bird you picked up with such excitement isn't real! Personally, I'd feel a total idiot for having been caught! It would cause me the final humiliation; you might say I'd be crestfallen.

Thank God I grew up in a normal world amongst normal people!

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6438



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2012, 02:08:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, but Rob, you have to remember that people like JJJ and others in a similar state of hauteur always know better than any potential customer whether or not an ad is misleading. It takes incredible arrogance actually to believe that you understand what constitutes "too smooth" better than those poor peasants out there.
Logged

RawheaD
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2012, 02:14:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't understand why Rob C insists on calling this a "fashion/makeup" product.  

It clearly is not:

http://goo.gl/phr84

It is advertised as a "Night/Day Cream", "skincare" product that is, "clinically proven to fight the 10 signs of aging", including "minimizing fine lines" "reducing wrinkles" "smoothes skin's surface" "brightens dullness" among others.

So, no, it's not "makeup"; it's being marketed as a clinically proven skincare product.

If Canon or Nikon released a wide-angle lens and made a point how "lab tests have proven how little distortion it has" in its adverts, and showed you an architectural image...that has been run through photoshop's Lens Correction filter, wouldn't you take offense?
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad