BellaSugar

UK Cracks Down on Another Misleading Ad

Miriam Lacey — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:00:00 PST

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?

What's Your Beauty Ad Pet Peeve?

BellaSugar — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:00:37 PDT

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

Could Truth in Advertising Be the Next Big Thing?

BellaSugar — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:00:29 PST

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?

Clean & Clear Ad Is Banned in the UK

BellaSugar — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:00:03 PST

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?

Australian Schools Let Companies "Teach" Makeup

BellaSugar — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:00:55 PST

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?

Beauty Byte: Rimmel Is Reamed for Its Kate Moss Ad

BellaSugar — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:03:46 PDT

Ruh roh! First it was L'Oreal that got a lashing, now it's Rimmel. The British beauty company is in hot water because of its ads for Magnif'eyes. The Advertising Standards Authority criticized Rimmel for failing to prove evidence that Kate Moss was not wearing false eyelashes in the ad, saying that the visuals were misleading.

I'm curious to know what you think about this trend of calling beauty companies out on their advertising. On the one hand, I think, "Certainly people understand that ads are retouched and faked." But on the other hand, I look at videos like this and wonder if it would be better if advertising were honest about what products can and can't do. What do you think? Should beauty companies be forced to be truthful in advertisements?

Source

"Truth in Advertising" Series Comes to TNT

BuzzSugar — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:30:00 PDT

It's not "Mad Men" but it's pretty darn close.
According to Variety, TNT is in the process of creating a "pilot of ad-world drama" titled "Truth in Advertising." The story will focus on "a powerful agency in contemporary Chicago. [Eric] McCormack will play Mason McGuire, an exec who is better at the corporate side of the biz but is unexpectedly promoted to creative director. [Tom] Cavanagh is cast as Conner, described as McGuire's more emotional and creative counterpart."

Product placement will play a big role.
I was wondering about this project which sounds suspiciously like it might be simply trying to ride on the successful coattails of AMC's "Mad Men," until I read that there will be "commercials-within-the-show." These will fit within the story but also "offer opportunities for a new kind of product placement." Greeeeat.

Well, at least Eric McCormack is back at work on the small screen!
I love ~~Will Truman~~ Eric McCormack! I can't wait to see him on TV again. And it will be interesting to see if Tom Cavanaugh can be seriously serious on a regular basis in this drama.

Source

Lying L'Oreal? Cosmetics Giant Slapped on the Wrist for Misleading Ads

BellaSugar — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:00:03 PDT

Due to an eagle-eyed couch potato in the UK, L'Oreal is under fire for having misleading ads. A commercial for Telescopic mascara features Penelope Cruz looking long-lashed and lovely. It also promised that women could have "up to 60 percent longer eyelashes" with the mascara.

The problem? As the TV viewer suspected, Cruz was wearing false lashes in the commercial! She complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, which deemed the ads misleading. According to the Daily Mail:

L'Oréal told the ASA its product made the tips of lashes more visible, giving a lengthening effect.

It said: "Penelope Cruz was wearing a few individual false lashes inserted into her natural lashes to fill in the gaps in her natural lashes for a consistent standard of lashes."

Furthermore, the Beeb reports that L'Oreal said it was "common industry practice" to use artificial lashes.

Are you surprised? I'm not. To find out why,

Advertisements use vague promises all the time. Phrases such as, "Use our product and see up to 60% longer lashes" means that, well, you could see 60% longer lashes-or you could see 1% longer lashes, too.

Or when you see a celebrity gushing about the latest haircolor-in-a-box, it's not as straightforward as it seems. (Do you really think Sarah Jessica colors her hair at home?) While the celebrity legally has to have that haircolor in the commercial, it was probably applied by a professional stylist, and he or she probably used more than just one color, and there were likely deep-conditioning treatments involved as well. So it's all within regulations-but you're unlikely to get the same results at home.

In the case of Cruz, L'Oreal tried to prove its innocence by pointing out that Telescopic mascara was indeed applied over the lashes, but the ASA said "no dice." From here on out, L'Oreal has to add a disclaimer to ads whenever models are shown wearing false lashes.

Source

LSD in the 1960s

Annie Scudder — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:40:46 PDT

Neurotic Roger Sterling finds truth on this week's episode of Mad Men with the help of LSD. Thanks to his experimental much younger wife, Jane, Roger reluctantly attends a dinner party, which becomes much more interesting once acid comes into the mix.

As expected, this season of Mad Men is full of historical references from 1966. If you paid close attention to Roger's one-liners, you may have heard him say, "Well, Dr. Leary I find your product boring," after his early reaction to LSD leaves him less than entertained. Roger, who eventually comes around to the drug during his trip, wasn't talking about Jane's professor friend hosting the party. Dr. Timothy Leary was a Harvard psychologist who founded the League for Spiritual Discovery (LSD) in 1966. The holy sacrament of the religion was LSD, and Leary hoped to get it legalized under freedom of religion. As an ad man like Roger Sterling could appreciate, Dr. Leary was the face of the LSD brand, and his one-liner "turn on, tune in, drop out" was meant to work like an advertising slogan.

Before the counterculture of the 1960s, LSD captured the interest of the US government. The CIA conducted experiments, hoping it could leverage the drug for mind control or chemical warfare. Also beginning in the 1950s and gaining popularity during the '60s, psychotherapists used it as a way to get to a patient's subconscious. By 1967, the Beatles had released "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." Although John Lennon denied the title was a reference to the psychedelic drug, the BBC banned the song. Soon came a more significant ban. In 1968, the US made LSD illegal. Take a look at some photos of Dr. Leary and his following from the 1960s now.

How Some Countries Limit Airbrushed Advertisements

Anna Monette Roberts — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 03:30:13 PDT

Airbrushing and advertising have become synonymous. While Photoshop renders perfect, slender, and flawless-faced images that may sell products or magazine covers, some worry that heavily altered depictions can negatively impact women. The good news is celebrities, companies, and several countries are taking a stand against excessive and unrealistic airbrushing. This week, Israel passed legislation that will place limits on airbrushing in fashion advertisements. Israel's new rules will require all advertisers to label photographs that have received retouching. In addition, the regulations will try to promote healthier body image by requiring all models to have a minimum body mass index of 18.5, which is the minimum weight that the World Health Organization considers standard or healthy.

Australia has attempted similar measures. In 2010, Australia's youth minister Kate Ellis came up with guidelines to ban ultra thin models and heavy retouching. The initiative would require Austrian advertisers to "disclose when images have been retouched and refrain from enhancing photographs in a way that changes a person's body shape, for example, lengthening their legs or trimming their waist, or removing freckles, lines and other distinguishing marks."

Working to comb through all advertisements, the UK has an independent group called the Advertising Standards Authority, which regulates advertising across all media platforms to ensure that ads are "decent and truthful." While airbrushing is a common occurrence, the agency does ban ads that are highly exaggerated. Recently, Rachel Weisz's L'Oreal's Revitalift Repair 10 ad was banned for its excessive and misleading airbrushing. In the ad, the actress's face was devoid of wrinkles and promoted extremely false advertising.

Back in the US, we don't have specific laws regulating airbrushing, but you can pick up this month's The Economist's Intelligent Life with the cover featuring an untouched Cate Blanchett. The Intelligent Life editor Tim de Lisle explains their decision, "When other magazines photograph actresses, they routinely end up running heavily Photoshopped images, with every last wrinkle expunged . . . Cate Blanchett, by contrast, appears on our cover . . . with the odd line on her face and faint bags under her eyes. She looks like what she is - a woman of 42." Ironically, an un-airbrushed image becomes a sensational news story, but as a public, do we prefer perfect, pretty images or do we really wish to see true portrayals of our celebrities? What do you make of these types of regulations?