The Daily Edge uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

US moves towards banning Photoshop in make-up ads

Cosmetics giant Procter & Gamble has been forced to pull an ad which used post-production to enhance a model’s eyelashes

File photo
File photo
Image: _overanalyzer via Flickr

PROCTER & GAMBLE has agreed to never again run an ad for its CoverGirl mascara because it used “enhanced post-production” and “photoshopping” to make eyelashes look thicker than they were in real life.

P&G agreed to the ban even though it disclosed in the ad that the image was enhanced.

The move is the latest in a series of baby steps that U.S. and international advertising regulators have taken to ban the use of Photoshop in advertising when it is misleading to consumers.

The company’s decision was described in a ruling by the National Advertising Division, the US industry watchdog that imposes self-regulation on the advertising business. NAD is part of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. Its rulings are respected and followed by most advertisers because it enjoys a close relationship with the FTC, from which it has historically drawn some of its senior staff. Recalcitrant advertisers who refuse to withdraw or amend misleading ads are referred by the NAD to the FTC, which has the power to fine, sue or bring injunctions against companies.

When asked whether this was a de facto ban on Photoshop, NAD director Andrea Levine told us:

“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.’”

’2X more volume’

The ad in question was for CoverGirl NatureLuxe Mousse Mascara, which promised “2X more volume” on women’s lashes. After reviewing the ad, P&G agreed to yank it. The NAD ruling said:

“… [P&G] advised NAD it has permanently discontinued all of the challenged claims and the photograph in its advertisement. NAD was particularly troubled by the photograph of the model – which serves clearly to demonstrate (ie, let consumers see for themselves) the length and volume they can achieve when they apply the advertised mascara to their eyelashes. This picture is accompanied by a disclosure that the model’s eyelashes had been enhanced post production.”

In a footnote, the NAD said it was following the lead of its sister body in the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority, which in July banned cosmetics ads featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington because they used Photoshop. The NAD said:

“Advertising self-regulatory authorities recognize the need to avoid photoshopping in cosmetics advertisements where there is a clear exaggeration of potential product benefits.”

“… the picture of Ms. Roberts had been altered using post production techniques (in addition to professional styling, make-up, photography and the product’s inherent covering and smoothing nature which are to be expected), exaggerating what consumers could expect to achieve through product use.”

The UK ruling found the use of photo retouching misleading per se.

In the US, the FTC has has also tightened rules to hold celebrities accountable if they make claims in ads they know cannot be true.

And in France, in 2009, 50 politicians asked for health warnings to be imposed on fashion ads if they showed retouched models’ bodies.

Published with permission from:

Business Insider
Business Insider is a business site with strong financial, media and tech focus.

Read next:

Comments (24 Comments)

  • Kan no-wun spell thees daze?

    Reply
  • What’s the difference between photo shop and putting on the fake eyelashes in the first place?! One fools the women who buy them, the other fools the bloke who goes to chat her up!

    Reply
  • Dee Mac 17/12/11 #

    I agree that the whole post production enhancement may be obvious even without the micro writing at the end of the screen and as level headed adults we may not be fooled by it but the impressionable and vulnerable wannabe supermodel teenagers who are less likely to filter the nonsense that we can are a likely target . As was mentioned last week in an article on the journal.ie The photo shop imagery in advertising is feeding an audience unrealistic and unachievable perfection and leading venerable persons with eating and personality disorders to an extreme level ! People no longer know what is real ! Is all about money profit and power within the industry. And no consideration seems to be given to the casualties along the way .

    Reply
  • I fully support this new ban. I like many believe everything advertisements show me and yet I bought lynx last week and not a single photoshop’d angel has fallen from the sky.

    Reply
  • Hey ladies we would all look amazing if we had make up artists and stylist 24/ 7 like Kate moss

    Reply
  • I’ve noticed the amount of people who pay no attention to the on screen disclaimers.. It’s quite staggering, because they’re there, on almost everything..
    Example, hair care range advert.. 80 or 90% of women tested (out of a sample group of 182) agreed hair looked great, next we get pictures of hair freshly cut, styled with serums & professionally blow dried and the disclaimer “classic shampoo vs our brand shampoo and conditioner”, well of course your hair feels better with conditioner than without!
    Or we have some celeb advertising hair dye (only she’s wearing hair extensions, which you cannot dye using this product).

    It’s everywhere, ads for financial products, even foods.. Even a lot of their market research is skewed because they base it on “like it or get your money back” offers, which always include some small print that make the process of getting your money back too cumbersome to bother.. Hence they can conclude everyone agreed their product was best..

    Advertising really gets my goat, it’s all lies.. What’s rare is products that actually are what they say they are..

    Reply
  • Its just how advertising works though isnt it? Look at how a burger looks in a McDonalds ad and then look at what you actually get in one of their restaurants. Advertising is fake. Its built on the premise of selling people what they think are their dreams or what they want. They’ll always find away around these laws, marketing companies earn millions a year to do it.

    Reply
  • If you think sticking a bit of mascara on the stumpy little lashes you have will make you look like you’re wearing 2 sets of inch long falsies, then you deserve to be taken in by ads! I love my make up and will be wearing a lot of it tonight at a Christmas party, but a bit of Rimmel lippy doesn’t make me Kate Moss!

    Reply
    • Aine 17/12/11 #

      Daisy its about time something is done Kate Moss is as average as the rest of us!! Photoshop shouldn’t be used in anything whether it be mascara or the actual size of someone waste etc

      It is misleading most of us are visual creatures thus expect the same if we buy a product after we’ve seen it advertised

      Reply
    • Actually Kate moss sucks without make-up and photoshop. I am graduate as publicist but kind ashamed of this world. Want my kids to live in a world were they won’t fall for all the fake things that the media sells. You are pretty as the girl in the magazine cover. The difference is you are 100% original and not fabricated . … One of the reasons so many people become depressed nowadays is because they fully believe that everything should be perfect as it is on television and magazines. When they realise this isn’t true, well we all know. Very sad.

      Reply
  • Does it matter? Beauty is only skin deep. Its what a person is like on the inside that counts. And I’ve never found Kate Moss attractive..to thin. I like my women real.

    Reply
  • Misbranding is wrong on many levels. Have they [big business] no morals or ethics? Wait, did they ever? Unfortunately, for many, especially females, “vanity, thy name is master” and companies like P&G know, understand and exploit our weaknesses. Ladies, let’s love ourselves as-is and save our money for treating ourselves to things that really benefit us like a massage, a good book, a good haircut, a visit to a museum or a really, really good bra! Nothing like a good bra.

    Reply
  • Dee Mac 18/12/11 #

    Joe blogs I reckon it was too cold for their skimpy outfits poor angels have some respect ha ha maybe next time !! Keep the faith ha ha

    Reply
  • mick h 18/12/11 #

    You can’t believe any photos used in advertising these days are real.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq4HMIv6so8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Reply
  • Everyone I know in the photo industry uses Photoshop, shock horror! I use it as part of my workflow, retouches are just another part of the process. I think if you use it to misrepresent the efficacy of a specific product then that should be regulated, but for removing everyday zits, bumps, blemishes, stray hairs and dandruff then sure, why not?

    Reply
  • This is ridicules…. Photoshop is used everywhere I think lawmakers should focus on more important issues.. All the regulations it’s a farse ..

    Reply

Add New Comment