Comments on: L’Oreal Ads Rejected by U.K. Advertising Authority

By: Someone

Someone — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:31:00 +0000

Advertising laws in the UK state that companies must keep the before shots so that they can be investigated should there be complaints. There were complaints, and the before shots weren’t produced = advert banned. If Julia Roberts has a contract saying no one will see before shots, that might explain why L’Oreal didn’t just hand them over.

By: Richard Burgess

Richard Burgess — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 17:38:00 +0000

Actually in the UK it is illegal for alcohol advertising to suggest that it will increase your ‘sexual attractiveness’.

Though the Axe (here marketed as ‘Lynx’) adverts are run.

By: Bree

Bree — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:52:00 +0000

Dude, nobody thinks it is gonna apply to things that are obviously fantasy. These are portrayed as reality. Hence the problem.

By: Kinelfire

Kinelfire — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:48:00 +0000

Presumably they were the first two exemplars they laid their hands on. The Chirsty Turlington photo, they had a before shot as well. Not so Julia Roberts, as she (or her legal team) have a contract saying that the ‘before’ shots will never see the light of day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/27/loreal-julia-roberts-ad-banned

Recently, make-up companies have been required to make clear that their model’s lashes have been ‘enhanced’ with false eyelashes, for example, in mascara adverts. This is probably the next step from that.

By: PG

PG — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:19:00 +0000

I had the same kind of reaction! It looks extremely creepy to have her skin stretched like silly putty.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:29:00 +0000

Soo…

When ads have to “accurately illustrate” the product and its effects on you, does that mean that I can sue the next time I drink a beer and no bikini-clad supermodel jumps me ?

What about Axe ? I mean to call the promoted effects exaggerated is a gross understatement.

By: nmlop

nmlop — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 05:05:00 +0000

Haha thank you! I was seriously staring at it after seeing this on several feminist blogs, like, “What? There’s a before section?” I guess my confusion comes down to my reading comprehension today rather than to the evils of air-brushing, then :)

By: TeakLipstickFiend

TeakLipstickFiend — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:43:00 +0000

What I find bizarre is that these ads aren’t different from any beauty ads one sees. They all look overly photoshopped and unreal, especially the ones for mascara. Why have they just picked on these?

By: Maya Rogers

Maya Rogers — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:25:00 +0000

The second one reminds me of all the skin-whitening commercials I see here (in China.) The model’s face/body doesn’t even move, and yet it digitally changes. It’s more than obvious that digital manipulation is responsible, yet these products continue to sell.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:26:00 +0000

The Roberts ad isn’t a before/after; that shadow in the middle of her face is just the picture of a bottle (I’m guessing of a Lancome product) on the back of the page showing through to this side.

By: eduardo

eduardo — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:03:00 +0000

At least I couldn’t see a wrinkle in the Lancome ad. She’s 43 years old -even older than me- and that skin looks very smooth. Reality is a bit different:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Julia_Roberts_2011_Shankbone_3.JPG

Also, I’ve seen scars of nose jobs up close, and recognize one in that picture. I wonder who in Hollywood hasn’t succumbed to vanity. Nia Vardalos perhaps?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:19:00 +0000

When I saw the second one, I immediately thought that the “effect the product could not achieve” was the Brazil-style elastic skin pulling. And my reaction was, “well that is not really a product I could ever imagine wanting anyway!”

By: Keeley Cochrane

Keeley Cochrane — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:16:00 +0000

Thanks for that. I really like your interpretation, (though I doubt it’s what they’re going for.)
:)

By: Penny10

Penny10 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:41:00 +0000

“Then again, L’Oreal is getting a lot of attention from the news media (and blogs, erg) and these images are going up everywhere, for free.”

Yeah, a lot of negative attention. Their work is being pulled apart which is good.

By: Heather Brooks

Heather Brooks — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:31:00 +0000

Uh, I can’t even tell which part of Julia is supposed to be natural and which is the make-up. I only see a slight color difference, and I didn’t even notice that much until I looked at the comments. Maybe the difference would be more noticeable on a larger screen? Or a larger ad? Which makes me wonder is ANYONE’S face would look “good” at 20x magnification without Photoshop. We all have pores and wrinkles. We’re human after all, not dolls.