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?"
Interesting that the NADs would be protecting me from beautiful women. Hm.
I'm creating an analog version of Photoshop for beauty enhancement. I'm kicking around 3 names for it right now: 1) Flugrup, 2) Snibb, and 3) Makeup.
Table-ized A.I.
They're protecting millions of impressionable young girls who might be exposed to these ads.
Yeah I went there.
A gal's perspective here. This is something that I learned as a teenager: Makeup is actually bad for your skin. If you care for your skin properly as a teenager and a young adult, and don't slather twenty layers of makeup on it daily, then your skin actually stays pretty nice looking through your thirties and forties. However, if you wear makeup regularly as a youngster, you'll need to wear makeup for the rest of your life. (Not smoking also helps a lot as well.)
I do wear light makeup on special occasions, but during the week at work I just don't bother. I use a clear combo gel/powder with sunscreen called MagicX instead of foundation on "bad skin days." That's all I need, even though the cosmetic industry thinks I need to have twenty different products on my skin daily. I splurge on good lotions and night treatments, but because I do that, I don't need makeup - or photoshop - to have a nice looking face.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
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).
As humorous as that is, it isn't a government regulation. At least, not in the sense that I think you're presenting. NAD is an regulatory body set up by the cosmetics industry to police itself.
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.
I'd even go so far as to say I've seen what he's like on the inside.
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.