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,

read more 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

Tool Unveils the Reality of Photoshopped Magazines

Kelly Schwarze — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:27:01 PST

Looking at a rack of magazines, it's hard to find a cover that hasn't been photoshopped in to perfection. Now PhD computer science students at the University of Dartmouth have developed a software tool to rate photographs based on how much digital alterations were made.

The tool, which is part of recently released research in the National Academy of Sciences is intended to bring a level of truth to media and advertising and create awareness for natural beauty, without Photoshop. “The ubiquity of these unrealistic and highly idealized images has been linked to eating disorders and body image dissatisfaction in men, women, and children,” the paper said. “In response, several countries have considered legislating the labeling of retouched photos.”

The researchers hope the tool will one day be used to put warning labels on altered images, describing how much the photos have been changed. Would you support labels on heavily photoshopped images within media content and advertisement?

A Director Talks Beauty, Weight, and Acceptance in America

Miriam Lacey — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:04:10 PDT

America the Beautiful II is the new chapter in the much-lauded documentary series that explores attractiveness, self-perception, and weight in America. For its release, filmmaker Darryl Roberts spoke with us about what working on these films has taught him about beauty, what really makes someone attractive, and what keeps him happy with his own appearance. For the interview, keep reading.