LOreal advert banned in UK - ASA ruling

[N Walker]

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Entertainment/2012/02/04/LOreal_advert_banned_in_UK_714739.html

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled the 41-year-old actress' complexion had been digitally changed in the image used to promote L'Oreal Paris Revitalift Repair 10, making it appear smoother and more even, upholding a complaint made by MP Jo Swinson.

[louoates]

A great example of government meddling in everybody's life. Next step is to ban any portrayal of anything some other idiot feels violates their personal idea of "body confidence". I wouldn't be surprised to see this happening in the U.S. A great opportunity for our current White House resident to name a "Body Confidence" tsar.

[Robert Roaldi]

I don't follow your objection. My reading of it is that they ruled it misleading advertizing. Now they should get to work on all those sugar- and salt-laden processed foods claiming to be healthy.

[Rhossydd]

A great example of government meddling in everybody's life.

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

[Rob C]

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.

A game, but one with big bucks and big employment. Eff too much with the business and the few well-earning shooters left in it are going to have to join the ranks of the stock giants and push even more of the common herd of snappers into the ditch. Not even thinking, of course, of the many chemists, assistants etc. etc. that depend on the beauty industry for their livelihoods.

Some things are best left alone. The only valid interference, in my view, is where substances are unsafe; then, close them down.

Funny; in one thread there's an argument against authoritarian interference in our lives, yet here we see the opposite. Some freedoms are clearly more valid than others!

;-)

Rob C

[RSL]

ROTFL! Has the "Advertising Standards Authority" published standards for smoothness, defining what's "too smooth" and what's "too even?" And if so, how do they make their comparisons? Is it like justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Potter Stewart admitting that he can't define pornography, but he "knows it when he sees it" or have they come up with a "scientific" way to determine "smoothness?"

This is the most hilarious act by a board of busybodies I've seen in a long time. People in the UK must be cracking up when they read this stuff.

[Rob C]

ROTFL! Has the "Advertising Standards Authority" published standards for smoothness, defining what's "too smooth" and what's "too even?" And if so, how do they make their comparisons? Is it like justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Potter Stewart admitting that he can't define pornography, but he "knows it when he sees it" or have they come up with a "scientific" way to determine "smoothness?"

This is the most hilarious act by a board of busybodies I've seen in a long time. People in the UK must be cracking up when they read this stuff.

Trust me, Russ, there will be plenty of people in Britain delighted to ban anything/everything that's different to their own taste. Some years ago they enforced a ban on an Opium Perfume ad. showing off a well-endowed fashion model, Sophie Dahl, lying on her back, naked, but totally without revealing a hot damned thing that she shouldn't.

A few hundred wrote in with complaints, and that was enough to cause the withdrawal of the poster; a few hundered people out of 66 million!

Go figure about tails and dogs and happy waggings.

Rob C

[johnbeardy]

A great example of government meddling in everybody's life.

Huh? It's nothing to do with government. It's like being disciplined by one's own profession.

[Rob C]

Huh? It's nothing to do with government. It's like being disciplined by one's own profession.

On the face of it, you're right; but you have to wonder who makes the rabbit run. Our Advertising Standards Association is a funny creature, as is the Broadcasting edition. Any day now, and they'll try to bring the censor back into theatres...

Rob C

[kikashi]

ROTFL! Has the "Advertising Standards Authority" published standards for smoothness, defining what's "too smooth" and what's "too even?" And if so, how do they make their comparisons? Is it like justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Potter Stewart admitting that he can't define pornography, but he "knows it when he sees it" or have they come up with a "scientific" way to determine "smoothness?"

This is the most hilarious act by a board of busybodies I've seen in a long time. People in the UK must be cracking up when they read this stuff.

Russ, I wouldn't disagree with your general characterisation of the ASA (although some of its rulings add to the public stock of mirth) and I don't know enough about this particular ad to comment in detail.

However, the principle does have some validity. If you advertise a product which you claim achieves a particular result, and you use photographs which purport to demonstrate that result but which are in fact merely digitally manipulated, that's misleading. The ASA's slogan is "Legal, decent, honest, truthful" (applied to the ads, of course, not itself).

In response to others, it isn't a government organisation; and it would certainly address (and has addressed) any advertisement which claimed wthout evidence that foods were "healthy".

Jeremy

Jeremy

[RSL]

Jeremy, There's that old saw: "Let the buyer beware." It's only been fairly recently that the Western world has decided people aren't smart enough to figure out that a woman in a particular ad has skin that's impossibly smooth. Yes, it would be nice if advertisers were completely honest ("Our product is better than some, worse than others, and sometimes just so-so"), but that's not the way the world works, and, frankly, I'd be appalled if advertisers started doing that. It'd create the same kind of hazard nuclear disarmament would create. In an honest advertising environment the liar would be king.

But the UK isn't the only place with boards of busybodies. When I was mayor of Manitou Springs, the Council decided, over my objection, to establish an "historic preservation commission," empowered to do things such as tell you what color to paint your house. I pointed out that if we'd had an historic preservation commission from the beginning we'd all be living in tepees. But I was outvoted, the Board was appointed by the Council, and the Board immediately elected as chairwoman a woman affectionately known around town as "the queen of kitsch." It was all downhill from there, and the damned board still exists and holds back progress year after year.

Maybe what the ASA ought to do is get Adobe to make a special version of ACR without a Clarity slider, and insist that advertisers use that.

[BernardLanguillier]

That makes sense to me.

Skin improved smoothness is the main goal of this technical product, so it makes sense to expect a reasonnably accurate description of the results unless the add is clearly being positioned in the grotesque style which I am sure it was not... Luxury doesn't seem to mix with humor too well these days.

A Karcher commercial showing their low end gear removing a thick layer of rust from a super tanker hull to turn into a white Italian yacht would be deceiving just as much. Although that would be exagerated enough to be considered as grotesque. Gee... I like this analogy! :-)

Now the problem may be that the whole beauty/luxury industry is built on top of an incredible layer of dreams and illusions. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

Now the problem may be that the whole beauty/luxury industry is built on top of an incredible layer of dreams and illusions. :-)

Of course it is. If you're ever in doubt, go to the nearest place where people gather and look around. Beauty is an internal thing, not a skin thing.

[Jim Pascoe]

I would be surprised if anyone (except their mums and lovers) actually knew what these models/actors looked like before the digital manipulation anyway.  I don't suppose any pictures get circulated of them in any other state than made-up, and so it is mere conjecture what effects the potions have on them.  Improvement on top of perfection.  It is all a nonsense.  On a serious note though I do believe that ads need to be held to account if they are misleading.

Jim

[Rhossydd]

I don't suppose any pictures get circulated of them in any other state than made-up,

They do, there's lots of magazines that use paps to get photos of celebrities out of make up. You can earn a living just getting shots of celebs looking rough.
Hence part of the concern that theses trashy mags' gullible and less smart readership think that products really can transform people.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Been downloading fashion shoot medium format RAW files to play with, wow but I didn't realise just how bad some of these models skin is, how much facial hair they don't bother to get rid of, how bad their acne is. Walking past some advertising posters the next day was actually quite amusing knowing probably just how much facial work had been done! There is something to keeping the megapixel count down and AA filters in place, what's the point of all that detail if you're only going to clone and smooth the *bleep* out of it anyway? 

[RawheaD]

VERY interesting to see the polarization in this thread.  I, for one, am completely for this particular injunction.  As has been stated several times, we're not talking just about fashion photos here; we're talking about a skin-care product advert, for which they've actively and heavily manipulated the look of the model's skin.

If you're against this, then, logically, you must be against any and every kind of regulation against "false advertisement".  Let's see how well you'll do in a world where corporations are left to freely exaggerate, lie, and deceive their customers without regulations.  Let's see how "smart" you are in being able to see through all those lies, even those lies that pertain to stuff *not* familiar to you (such as digitally altered photography).

[Rob C]

VERY interesting to see the polarization in this thread.  I, for one, am completely for this particular injunction.  As has been stated several times, we're not talking just about fashion photos here; we're talking about a skin-care product advert, for which they've actively and heavily manipulated the look of the model's skin.

If you're against this, then, logically, you must be against any and every kind of regulation against "false advertisement".  Let's see how well you'll do in a world where corporations are left to freely exaggerate, lie, and deceive their customers without regulations.  Let's see how "smart" you are in being able to see through all those lies, even those lies that pertain to stuff *not* familiar to you (such as digitally altered photography).

Now I understand why you call yourself rawhead.

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

Rob C

[jjj]

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.

[RSL]

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.

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.