Should deceptive mascara ads be legal?
It’s no secret that photo manipulation is now commonly used for cosmetics, anti-aging, and weight loss advertisements in order to persuade consumers to buy them. I have come to accept this as normal now and read consumer reviews on expensive cosmetics before buying them. But is it really legal to fill women’s magazines with digitally enhanced models?
For example, here is a photo of Kate Moss with no mascara on:
Kate Moss without makeup
Kate Moss is the face of Rimmel London. Here she is in an ad for New Extreme Black Magnif Eyes Mascara, which boasts 70% more vertical lashes:
Kate Moss Rimmel mascara ad
How is it possible that the teeny weeny lashes in the first photo somehow morphed into those pictured above with a few coats of mascara? It’s not physically possible.
The advertisement for the same mascara was banned after viewers complained that her lashes were fake.
Okay, so there’s one example. But what about every single other brand of mascara?! For example, I use The Colossal Volum’ Express® Mascara by Maybelline New York, which claims it gives you 9x the volume, instantly. The claim is ridiculous and the advertisement is unbelievable.
The Colossal Volum
This woman is wearing dead caterpillars on here eyes! Here are my real eyelashes after two coats of the same mascara:
My eyes with Maybelline mascara
You’ll notice that my eyelashes don’t reach my eyebrows, look relatively natural and are therefore completely unsuitable for a mascara ad.
In order to fully understand Maybelline’s 9x volume instantly claim, I thought it would be best to examine a single eyelash. Since we know that no mascara can actually add eyelashes, they have to base the thickness and volume claims on appearance of your existing eyelashes. This means that each eyelash would have to appear 9x thicker, right?
Projected eyelash appearance
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how a claim so ridiculous could make it past the Advertising Standards Authority and the other various companies that regulate advertising claims. Perhaps the fact that ‘everybody’s doing it’ makes it okay? Don’t get me started on wrinkle creams…
One of my favourite things to do is watch ads, but only reading the bottom of the screen. These ads (particularly beauty ones) always have ridiculous disclaimers like your mascara ad it might say something like “eyelash extensions used” or in hair ads it sometimes says “hair extensions used.” Then again I don’t see McDonalds burger ads saying “not fully cooked burger” which they never are.
It seems in certain cases you can pretty much say what you want in adverts as long as you put some kind of get out clause underneath!
Should it be illegal? I don’t know.
Are the advertisers clever? Abso-bloody-lutely!
You see, although people with a mind of their own like yourself can see right through this bullshit, these adverts aren’t aimed at you. They are aimed at ditzy image-obsessed airheads. The type that can be distracted by pretty celebrities and bright colours so they won’t notice the legally required “Lash inserts used” or “Images enhanced in post-production” notices that almost always appear along side these images. The type that make up a huge part of these companies’ markets.
Since it has become a legar requirement for these companies to display these notices they have become masters of misdirection. After all, there’s no law against producing an advert that distracts viewers from the big text notice that basically says “We’re lying”.
I know the Canadian Advertising Code of Standards (found at: http://www.adstandards.com/en/consumerSite/14CodeClauses.pdf ) has a clause of Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals. However, the International standard if different. In the high-fashion world of Britain and New York it is probably more suggested to heighten the product’s effect.
Again, they are only codes and it can be legitimized that high-fashion markets will allow unrealistic portrayals of human parts. Look at the Dove ‘True Beauty’ ad and see the amount of Photoshop allowed in an everyday ad.
However, I do feel there is an unjustified claim by the advertisers. I don’t even think people can have 250+ eyelashes.
It’s sad how people will compare themselves to edited photos. Perfection (not just in the area of appearance) is unattainable, yet we still try to grasp at it. My eyelashes actually are as long as the the girl’s in the second ad, but they are not full like that. And without mascara, the blond tips of my lashes are not seen.
I know the tricks of advertising, yet I fall for it most of the time…as one who acts on emotion.
This is too funny Amy, but so true at the same time… now, what were you about to say about wrinkle cremes?
I think in a way it shouldn’t because people get too obsessed and they will think that people from the magazines really look like that when they don’t. And men believe such things a lot too! Then if you don’t look like a FHM girl cover it’s insane it’s like people have this distorted perception of what is real… But what you are saying about this ads I guess even wit hthe ads i wouldn’t believe because clearly she’s wearing fake eyelashes on that one lol those don’t seem real eyelashes for damn sure. I got big eyelashes and I don’t think even mine would look like that.
I think we should file a class action lawsuit. I think this is ridiculous and that they are selling lies.
Yay! – A woman who sees the light. There is a reason why most men’s ads don’t have the disclaimers… they keep it simple. Shave with one of these and you could be a billionaire sportsman who conducts extra-marital affairs before driving his car into a tree.
So – volume. I’ve got to be a bit geek here. If your eyelash has a radius of 1 elu (eye lash unit) then it’s cross section is (Pi * 1^2) elu squared which is 3.15159265 (sadly I didn’t have to look that up). If we’re not adding length then 9x volume means it’s now 28-odd elu squared which gives a new radius of 3 elu.
Once again it’s down to the ditsy image obsessed Dorris to work out, in amongst the bright flashing lights and celebrity images, that in-fact this just makes your eyelashes thicker by smearing them with gloopy crap that runs down your cheeks when you work out how much you’ve been fleeced through your lack of common sense.
I don’t have a bee in my bonnet about this… honest.
But… it’s always worth a rant in the UK to the Advertising Standards Agency. When BT launched 2Meg broadband years ago they claimed it meant sharing photos was now 8x faster. I wrote to ASA pointing out that the upload was the same speed so sharing could not be 8x quicker. My complaint was upheld and BT were forced to pull the add.
Me