Covergirl Mascara Ad Banned For Excessive Photoshopping

Another makeup company is being raked over the coals, this time for digitally manipulating a models eyelashes to make them look longer. The trouble is, it's for CoverGirl's Natureluxe Mousse Mascara which claims the product will create "2x more volume". Granted the ad apparently did mention at the very bottom, in small print, that the model's eyelashes had indeed been Photoshopped, but who reads all those disclaimers? Certainly not those of us who have to drag out our magnifying glasses to read labels that over the years have gotten increasingly smaller. And if it's a television ad, forget it.

The U.K. recently banned a Julia Robert's Lancome ad, along with a Christy Turlington Maybelline ad, for  misleading consumers.  This time the U.S. is jumped on the banning bandwagon, and out goes the CoverGirl Natureluxe campaign. Industry watchdog, and part of the Better Business Bureau- the National Advertising Division (NAD), decided to ban the ad.

As a result, Proctor and Gamble (owners of CoverGirl Cosmetics) claims it pulled all misleading ads, and NAD seems to be satisfied.

Women spend thousands of dollars a year trying to get that flawless model-perfect complexion and those extra long lashes; obviously an impossible task, and a major waste of money, since neither can those models.

There's a major difference between portrait photographers digitally manipulating a model's face for the artistic merits, but it's not okay for ad campaigns to claim something works when it clearly doesn't.


Photo Credit: Jezebel.com

NAD director Andrea Levine told Business Insider: 'You can’t use a photograph to demonstrate how a cosmetic will look after it is applied to a woman’s face and then – in the mice type – have a disclosure that says "okay, not really." 'NAD was particularly troubled by the photograph of the model – which serves clearly to demonstrate (i.e., let consumers see for themselves) the length and volume they can achieve when they apply the advertised mascara to their eyelashes.'

When Photoshopping Goes Too far: UK Bans Lancome Julia Roberts Ad

The Julia Robert's photo for  L'Oreal's Lancome ad is beautiful in its own right. Flawless radiant skin, a great airbrushing and photoshop job, but it's not real.  Julia's aging face has flaws, as do all of ours over a certain age, and if an ad is going to tout an anti-ageing product, then you better dang well be sure that there is some truth in advertising.   As a result, Britain has banned both the Lancome ad and a Christy Turlington ad for Maybelline's "The Erasor", a product that claims to cover up flaws. 

Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson believes the ads are misleading, and rightfully so. If you are creating art, well then photoshop and airbrush away; but when you are advertising a product that can never achieve the same results as your edited photo, then that's just plain deception.  There is a place for minor digital manipulation, as in stray hairs, shadows or blemishes that the subject might not normally have, but  crows feet, or dark circles under the eyes? Nope. If the product claims to rid you of them (and it's highly doubtful it can), then there is no place for major editing.

According to the Guardian UK, to demonstrate what 'The Erasor' foundation can do the Maybelline ad featured certain parts of Christy's face covered with the product and the rest not covered. L'Oreal even admitted that the photo had been

 "....digitally retouched to lighten the skin, clean up makeup, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows". However, it claimed there were still signs of ageing, such as crow's feet, and that the image "accurately illustrated" the achievable results.

If I am going to pay good money for a product, I want to make sure that it does what it claims, since my skin isn't going to be 'lightened' and touched up in other ways.  I realize products work differently on different people, but if they have to touch up the image of a beautiful model, than how am I going to fare?

The company, which provided the ASA with pictures of both women "on the red carpet" to show that they were naturally beautiful, admitted that digital post-production techniques had been used on Roberts but maintained that the changes were not "directly relevant" and that the ad was an "aspirational picture".

Aspirational?  For whom? 

Good for Swinson. I think we're all tired of aspiring to stick thin, wrinkle-free models when, in truth, those wrinkles and that fat have been photoshopped out and off, by some very talented artists. 




Source:  GuardianUK