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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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)