Beauty adverts that are too good to be true
After Clairol hair dye ad is banned as misleading, we reveal the other. . .
Last week, a television commercial for Clairol Nice ’n’ Easy hair dye was banned by the advertising regulators.
the advertising standards authority (asa) ruled that the advert, which showed Mad Men actress Christina Hendricks changing her trademark red hair for blonde, ‘misleadingly exaggerated the capability of the product’.
Procter & Gamble, which makes the dye, admitted that the commercial was filmed in reverse.
It transpired that Ms Hendricks, 40, is a natural blonde and has been dyeing her hair red since the age of ten. However, the firm asked her not to colour her hair for eight weeks before filming to let her blonde come through.
she then used Nice ’n’ Easy’s Natural Honey Blonde dye before recording the sequence at the end of the commercial.
the following day, the actress dyed her hair back to red before being filmed again for the beginning of the ad.
It is hardly the first time a beauty brand has tried to bamboozle us and been banned as a result.
In the past five years, the asa has upheld complaints against 632 health and beauty adverts. Here are some that tried to pull the wool over our eyes . . .
Christian Dior Show New Look Mascara
The ad: In this magazine advert, actress Natalie Portman gazes at the camera with a feathery fan of lashes framing her wide eyes.
The claim: ‘the miracle of a nano brush for an unrivalled lash creator effect. It delivers spectacular volume-multiplying effect, lash by lash.’
The trick: a significant proportion of those extra, thicker lashes came courtesy of Photoshop. Or, as Dior claimed, they retouched the picture to ‘stylistically lengthen and curve her lashes’.
The result: Banned in October 2012.
Lancome Teint Miracle
The ad: appeared in glossy magazines, spread over facing pages. On one, a radiant Julia Roberts; on the other, a picture of a foundation.
The claim: ‘aura is natural light emanating from beautiful skin. We can reproduce this . . . Lancome invents its first foundation that recreates the aura of perfect skin. Instantly complexion appears naturally bare, beautifully flawless and luminous, as if lit from within. see yourself in a new light.’
The trick: If we could all be photographed in soft focus by celebrity snapper Mario testino, we’d probably see ourselves in a new light. Especially if the resulting pictures were ‘exaggerated by digital post-production techniques’ — namely, airbrushed. Perhaps it wasn’t surprising that the asa ‘could not conclude the ad i mage accurately illustrated what effect the product could achieve’. No wonder it was called Miracle.
The result: Banned July 2011.
Estee Lauder Body Performance Slim Shape AntiCellulite Visible Contouring Serum
The ad: In a magazine ad, a model in a high- cut white swimming costume rests against a white ball, her bronzed bottom and thighs smooth, as she gazes at a bottle of thigh-slimming serum.
The claim: ‘ this multi- action serum with our exclusive thermogenic complex and potent asian herbals melts away the fatty look of cellulite. Re-firms and tightens to help keep that dimpled look from coming back.’
The trick: Estee Lauder produced a large dossier of evidence to prove their wonder cream could do what they said. Unfortunately, when the asa asked experts to examine the skin-tightening tests, t hey f ound t hey had been performed on the backs of hands, not the thighs or bottom.
The result: Banned May 2005.
Olay Definity Eye Illuminator
The ad: Glossy magazine images of twiggy, who at the time was 60, looking remarkably unlined — and crediting this to an eye cream.
The claim: ‘Olay is my secret to brighter-looking eyes. Because younger-looking eyes never go out of fashion . . . reduces the look of wrinkles and dark circles.’
The trick: It turns out that Olay wasn’t twiggy’s only secret: postproduction ‘ retouching’ also helped. the asa ruled that this could give consumers ‘a misleading impression of the effect the product could achieve’.
Olay then backtracked, saying the retouching shouldn’t have happened. they subsequently reproduced the advert with no retouching around the eyes.
The result: Banned December 2009.
Rimmel 1-2-3 Looks Mascara with Georgia May Jagger
The ad: Georgia May Jagger took centre stage in two print adverts and one TV ad for a mascara that claimed to be able to give women three different looks. In each ad, Jagger was shown in three images with progressively longer lashes.
The claim: ‘Just turn the dial. adjustable lash volume from light to dramatic . . . three hot looks in one mascara.’
The t rick: three hot l ooks achieved using three different types of ‘lash inserts’ — false lashes to you. Because while all the ads contained small print that stated ‘shot with lash inserts’ they did not, say the asa, ‘ make it clear that the lash inserts used were of different lengths’, which made the ads ‘misleading’.
The result: Banned November 2010.
Good Skin Tri-Aktiline Instant Deep Wrinkle Filler
The ad:
a grinning model on the page of a magazine next to a picture of the product and a number of statistics about its efficacy — ‘ Immediately: 68 per cent of subjects reported a visible filling of wrinkles. after eight weeks of continued use, clinical studies measured a 45 per cent
visible reduction in wrinkle depth and length.’
The claim: ‘ start to see your wrinkles disappear instantly.’
The trick: Well, you could start to see wrinkles disappear — if you had superhuman eyesight. the asa found that an improvement could be seen using imaging techniques, but the same effects ‘could not be detected by a human observer’. It deemed there were insufficient grounds for the ad’s claims and said the figures used were confusing and misleading.
The result: Banned January 2009.
L’Oreal Revitalift Repair 10
The ad: a moody black-and-white shot of actress Rachel Weisz beside a list of ten ways in which the moisturiser tackles signs of ageing.
The claim: ‘ Wrinkles appear reduced. skin looks smoother. Complexion looks more even. It’s not a facelift, it’s Revitalift.’
The trick: Weisz was photographed in flattering lighting and in monochrome. that, plus postproduction ‘enhancement’, led the asa to conclude the picture Banned (clockwise from top): The Christina Hendricks Clairol ad; Georgia May Jagger’s Rimmel campaign; Twiggy promoting Olay; and Julia Roberts’ Lancome advert had been ‘ altered in a way that substantially c hanged her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even [and so] misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product’.
The result: Banned February 2012.
Clinique Even Better Eyes
The ad: a tube of eye cream is applied to the area just under a model’s eye. Moments later, as a voice announces ‘ You see it instantly. Even Better Eyes . . .’ the model is shown bathed in light.
The claim: ‘seeing dark circles under the eyes? It can be fatigue, stress, age. and now, new Clinique Even Better Eyes takes eyes out of the shadows . . .’
The trick: If you shine a very bright light at something, it blinds the viewer to anything else. the asa noted that in the final frame of the TV advert, the model’s face ‘ had been defocused except for her eyes, and that her skin, including the under- eye area, appeared illuminated’.
the asa concluded that the ad ‘gave a misleading impression about the performance capabilities of the product’.
The result: Banned October 2013.