US Watchdog Bans Photoshop Use In Cosmetics Ads 383
MrSeb writes "In an interesting move that should finally bring the United States' fast-and-loose advertising rules and regulations into line with the UK and EU, the National Advertising Division (NAD) — the advertising industry's self-regulating watchdog — has moved to ban the misleading use of photoshopping and enhanced post-production in cosmetics adverts. The ban stems from a Procter & Gamble (P&G) CoverGirl ad that photoshopped a model's eyelashes to exaggerate the effects of a mascara. There was a footnote in the ad's spiel about the photo being manipulated, but according to the director of the NAD, that simply isn't enough: '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."' The NAD ruled that the ad was unacceptable, and P&G has since discontinued it. The ruling goes one step further, though, and points out that 'professional styling, make-up, photography and the product's inherent covering and smoothing nature' should be enough, without adding Photoshop to the mix. The cosmetics industry is obviously a good starting point — but what if the ban leaks over to product photography (I'm looking at you, Burger King), video gameplay demos, or a photographer's own works?"
They're not protecting you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're not protecting you (Score:3, Insightful)
Burger King was my first thought too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (Score:5, Insightful)
Ban clothes too! All they're doing is adding color to otherwise rather monotone skin color.
Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.
Well, on the same line: everybody in this world would need to wear a uniform - after all, different clothing are faking the stuff underneath. Should I continue?
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather marketers be over-restricted than under-restricted. Talk about lying: just the other day I got an ad in the form of a fake rebate check. It looks just like a real check, of course, and it says "REBATE CHECK" in big letters and "This is not a check" in very small letters. WTF? Can I sell a pill that says "CURES CANCER!" in big letters and then "Does not cure cancer" in small letters just below it?
(I'm not kidding. I can post a pic later if anyone wants to see proof.)
Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually agree with this. I don't use clothes at home either (or when browsing Slashdot), and if the weather permits, why should I need to use them outside either?
Hm, good question. Let me think about that for a while...
Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.
That's why most people shouldn't be allowed to walk around naked.
If they do this to food, it kills the industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Which of course is why the pictures of food NEVER look like what they serve you. On the plus side, you wouldn't really want to eat what they took pictures of.
Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, woman that use more than a minimal amount, tend to look worse. Makeup in almost all cases is *way* too obvious.
It does tell me something of their thought processes, so I'm not too bothered. it's a useful metric.
Re:Product photography (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you won't get individual burger chains voluntarily making their ads look like crap (it won't improve sales but it will make their competitors look better), the same goes with cosmetics companies, et al. Voluntary compliance simply won't happen.
Ok, what about the watchdog? Well, as the FCC found out when trying to impose rulings on network neutrality, the courts regard watchdogs as being not much more than mere advisory panels. In short, if a company took a watchdog to court, claiming that Congress had ruled these kinds of deceptive advertising to be non-protected Commercial Speech that they had First Amendment protections to be as deceptive as they damn well felt like, the company would almost certainly win.
Which means that if you honestly believe that there's a limit to the acceptable level of deception, Congress has to have some involvement. It needn't be a full-blown law, and that would likely also fail as UnConstitutional, but there has to be something that is at that level which clearly denotes that there is a difference between protected commercial speech (satire/parody, comedic representation, figurative representation, et al) and actual attempts to deceive a customer into buying something that never existed. And, no, what the US currently has is obviously not enough, or the cosmetics companies would be up the proverbial creek without paddle (or indeed canoe) via lemon laws. The product is, after all, "defective" when compared with what it's sold as. They aren't and the watchdog didn't even bother using such laws, showing the laws have no value or significance.
Re:Good! (Score:0, Insightful)
That pill you talk about: we call it "homeopathy".
Re:Product photography (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're not protecting you (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean the cosmetics companies can make adds and show these people without using any of their stuff. Also it is applied by professional makeup attest. Using the correct lighting and angles to hide imperfections.
Find a skinny girl (one with anorexia will work best because they are already a skeleton, you can always build up not down) Pad up the right places and put layers of makeup and there you have an unrealistic image of the cultures version of a beautiful woman used to sell a product.
Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (Score:4, Insightful)
A guy's perspective here:
Makeup looks bad. I mean, ugh. Horrifyingly bad. I can't count how many times I looked a girl's makeup-caked face in high school and felt like throwing up.
Unless you're a professional makeup artist. Those people know to use the absolute minimum, and exactly how to get the effect they want.
Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking from experience, it's more interesting to pick (1) and (3). Not necessarily in a good way.
Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're not protecting you (Score:4, Insightful)
The word you were looking for was "some" cosmetics that target men, not "lots". They do exist, but they are a minuscule fraction of the cosmetic market.
It is still very rare for men to use cosmetics today. It is not "quite common", not by a long shot.
Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Were you not an anonymous coward, and actually participated in the group, instead of taking potshots like an angry monkey throwing poo, you'd know me, and that I'm married, with a teenage daughter, who's also a geek. But thanks for playing.
There's two types of participants in this forum; those in the business, and those who buy goods and services from us with their burger king paychecks. I'm in the former group. It's not hard to guess which group you're in.
Re:How silly (Score:4, Insightful)
I can refute that pretty well. With good, soft, even lighting, a flattering pose, and attention paid to the facial shape and blemishes of the model, a good photographer can make just about anyone "pretty." Add in some professional make-up and hair work, and you're well on your way to making someone look far different than they do in real life.
Re:How silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Burger King was my first thought too (Score:5, Insightful)
If that alone were just allowable justification for manipulating ads, then they would be allowed to put a note somewhere in the ad (just as the mascara ad has done) to make sure that "every reasonable person knows this is BS".
In the case of the food, I am paying cash in advance at window 1 for what's in the picture on the glass. That's what I should be reasonably able to expect to receive at window 2. Now yes, everyone that has any experience with fast food restaurants knows this isn't how it works, but that's due to experience, not due to reasonable assumption. Take someone from another country that has never been to a fast food joint and see how they cry foul, "that looks very different than the picture in the window!" Just because you're used to how certain groups reliably false-advertise doesn't make it an acceptable behavior.
Just because you're used to someone trying to deceive you it doesn't mean they're not actually engaging in deceptive behavior.
Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/322/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Count on the NADs (Score:5, Insightful)
(please think about it for a few minutes before modding me down)
Re:They're not protecting you (Score:5, Insightful)
They're protecting millions of impressionable young girls who might be exposed to these ads.
Actually, they're protecting against fraudulent advertising. If I'm looking at an add for mascara, then I should expect that the model is wearing the mascara, and that the effects of the mascara aren't being modified beyond that of the mascara itself.
It's like an ad for a car, where the car has been photoshopped to look nicer. That's not actually the car!
Yes, someone else above is arguing that makeup itself is essentially real-life photoshopping, but then that is kind of the point. If the makeup is working properly, then the advertisements shouldn't need more photoshopping. How am I to evaluate the effectiveness or worth of the makeup, if the makeup's effects are muddled with other effects?