truth in advertising

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has been cracking down on misleading beauty ads lately, and a Nivea spot is the latest to get guillotined. Apparently, the ad indirectly suggested that 37 percent of Nivea Visage Anti-Wrinkle Q10 Plus ($20) users "felt more attractive now than they did 10 years ago."

In reality, the data, which was completely unconnected to the product in question, came from a study that simply asked women if they felt more attractive now than they had a decade before. Given the fact that less censorship goes on in the US, do you think we need more consumer protection? Or is it silly to believe ads in the first place?

On the latest episode of Mad Men, there was a lot of talk about marketing beauty, and of course the guys at the agency had some very retro ideas of what women want. (Hint: we're all marriage-crazed hysterics.) While we're glad the days of that kind of overt advertising are mostly over, there are still things about the way beauty products are sold that can rub you the wrong way. I, for example, find ads that use tons of lens flare and unnecessary sunlight laughable — their tagline should be "Buy this shampoo . . . and control the weather." Do you have a beauty ad pet peeve? And what do you think bothers you so much about it?

Source: Flickr User jbcurio

While watching Top Model last night, I was surprised to see this text flash on the bottom third of a Cover Girl mascara commercial:

Lash inserts used prior to application to add fullness but not length.

You could have knocked me over with a feather! That's the kind of full disclosure that some people are calling for, especially in the UK. But it hasn't been required of cosmetics companies yet — which is why it's pleasing to see this kind of straightforward initiative. What do you think?

A new year, a new banned advertisement in Britain. The Advertising Standards Authority has had this Clean & Clear commercial removed after two viewers complained about the before-and-after photos. In the "before" shots, the women are wearing only eye makeup; in the "after" pictures, they're wearing powder. It's pretty easy to tell, too:

"We considered that, in order to make the before and after comparison fair, both shots should have been taken under the same conditions (both without makeup) to ensure that any visible improvement was an accurate representation of what could be achieved with the product," the ASA stated. It's pretty amazing to think that two complaints could lead to an entire ad being knocked off the airwaves — and I, for one, am all for transparency in advertising. Things are so different on the other side of the pond, aren't they?

I know that marketing in schools is nothing new, but a program in Australia is taking things to a new level. A program called Fashion Roll Call, which is sponsored in part by makeup brand NP Set Cosmetics, is touring all-girl schools around the country. Their goal is to educate girls in fashion and beauty industry careers by presenting a "lunch-time fashion parade" followed by makeup application tutorials taught by makeup artists who work for NP Set.

When I was 13, I probably would have been excited for this, since it means no class and playing with stuff my parents wouldn't let me wear. But as an adult, I have mixed feelings. The cosmetics brand is getting choice branding access to kids in exchange for a few makeup tips. And since this program is being billed as educational, and intended to teach children about the fashion and beauty industries, why no boys or coed schools? There are tons of men in the fashion and beauty industries, and their absence suggests that the informational element here is a thin veneer to make aggressive marketing more palatable. What do you think?