Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 4:05 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22403
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Interesting case for anyone in advertising.....

Quote:
Digitally enhanced L'Oreal ad banned

Image

A L’Oreal advert featuring a digitally retouched image of actress Rachel Weisz has been banned by the British advertising watchdog after a complaint from an MP.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the image used to promote L’Oreal Paris Revitalift Repair 10 was altered to change Weisz’s complexion, making it appear smoother and more even.

It was judged to be in breach of the industry code and it “misleadingly exaggerated” the performance of the product, according to the ASA, which upheld a complaint from Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson.

The watchdog said the advert could not be used again in its current form and warned L’Oreal against using post-production techniques to misrepresent what their products can achieve.

The ASA ruling said: “Although we considered that the image in the ad did not misrepresent the luminosity or wrinkling of Rachel Weisz’s face, we considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even.

“We therefore concluded that the image in the ad therefore misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims (in the advert) ‘skin looks smoother’ and ‘complexion looks more even’.”

Ms Swinson, co-founder of the Campaign for Body Confidence, said: “The beauty and advertising industries need to stop ripping off consumers with dishonest images.

“The banning of this advert, along with the previous ASA rulings banning heavily retouched ads featuring Twiggy, Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, should act as a wake-up call.

“Thankfully the advertising regulator has again acknowledged the fraudulent nature of excessive retouching.

“The Royal College of Psychiatrists has spoken out about the harmful influenceof the media on body image and has highlighted the airbrushing and digital enhancement used to portray physical perfection as an area of concern.

“There needs to be much more diversity in advertising - different skin colours, body shapes, sizes and ages. Studies show that people want to see more authenticity from brands. Images can be aspirational without being faked.”

L’Oreal, in response to the complaint, said it “sought to represent Rachel Weisz as favourably as possible and therefore every effort had gone into ensuring the most flattering set-up”.

The cosmetics company said it used a lot of light, soft focusing and lower resolution to make the image more flattering and pointed out that “the ASA had previously ruled that cosmetics ads could present their product in the best possible light”.

PA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4015
Location: France
Doesn't that reasoning apply to all ad's?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4357
Location: Adopted Lion - Jon Davies
I think that Rachel Weisz's face would be significantly enhanced by the addition of my man gunk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16106
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones
clementinfrance wrote:
Doesn't that reasoning apply to all ad's?


What about ads for food where some bloke painstakingly dabs clear glue on foodstuffs to get that perfectly beaded 'just washed' look? I saw on a Charlie Brooker programme once that there is one bloke who films all pizza ads, as he has perfected the method for filming a slice being picked up and a strand of melted cheese trailling behind (something like that, anyway).

Seeing as the food industry is just as culpable for public health issues as the beauty industry (more so in fact, as we're talking about genuine, physical health problems*), one would hope they would be subject to the same level of scrutiny of their production and post-production methods.

*Just a bit of trolling.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4071, Bing [Bot], bonzaboy, booze, ChipSpike, forrester, Google Adsense [Bot], Gospel, Hong Kong, I like haggis, Jensrsa, jinxed, kingswood, Margin_Walker, Olo, PCPhil, Raggs, rfurlong, Saint, unseenwork, Willie Falloon, Wilson's Toffee and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group