Slashdot Mirror
US Watchdog Bans Photoshop Use In Cosmetics Ads
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 protecting millions of impressionable young girls who might be exposed to these ads.
Yea, I really wish someone in the government would make the fast food industry stop the clearly deceptive advertising. The pictured sandwiches are nothing like what you are actually buying. It is one thing to say "we took extra care to make it look good, positioned all of the parts perfectly, and photographed it under good lighting, it is quite another to photograph larger portions than the customer will ever get.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Ban clothes too! All they're doing is adding color to otherwise rather monotone skin color.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
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.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Yeah, the trouble is, the people who want to walk around naked are generally the ones you'd least like to see undressed...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
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.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Your burger doesn't look as good as the one in the picture for a couple of reasons. One is that the artists making the picture are extremely good at showing the product in a flattering way, and that's not going to change. Another part of that is because some products simply can't sit under hot lights for an hour, so they don't even use the real thing. The only thing that removing digital alteration from the process will do is force advertisers to use non-digital means of making their products look good. Non-digital airbrushing is still effective, just not as cheap. The burger on the menu will still look like a team of professional artists worked to make it look at good as possible, and the burger on your plate will still look like it was assembled by a high school kid in a hurry.
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.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Speaking from experience, it's more interesting to pick (1) and (3). Not necessarily in a good way.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
As a member of the male population, I would like to thank you for not giving in and wearing makeup all the time. There's a lot of charm to a woman who doesn't need to plaster her face in that stuff.
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
Ruling not about retouching photos. NAD doesn't care about using photoshop to remove models blemishes. This is about an advertisement that makes a specific claim about mascara increasing eyelash volume. The eyelash volume was made bigger using photoshop. NAD doesn't care if an advertisement for lipstick uses photoshop to make the eyelashes bigger.
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/322/
Is 1563649 a prime number?
If they were beaufiful they wouldn't use mascara.
(please think about it for a few minutes before modding me down)