I’ll be honest, prior to beginning A Girl’s Gotta Spa! several years ago, I truly did not understand what happens behind the scenes at beauty magazines or the advertising within its pages.
I mean, if an ad for mascara shows amazing lashes, isn’t that the look the mascara is expected to deliver? Sounds simple enough, right?
But those ads are being enhanced all of the time to make you take notice. We all hold out hope for that holy grail beauty product, and these ads seem to reach out from the pages dangling that carrot stick that prompts us to run right out to buy it.
The UK has been the pioneer when it comes to banning these photoshopped advertisements. They came down hard on L’Oreal for its Telescopic ad with Penelope Cruz (lash results were not real.) Although, I’ve tried Telescopic and I liked it…a lot. They also banned L’Oreal ads featuring Christy Turlington and Julia Roberts, who were so clearly digitally enhanced that neither one had a wrinkle! Their ads were for skin care and foundation.
Now, L’Oreal filed a complaint against Christian Dior for a misleading ad for Dior Show mascara featuring Natalie Portman. Dior admits that the image was digitally enhanced to add length and curl to Portman’s lashes. They state that the image is clearly aspirational. However, the UK banned it, agreeing with L’Oreal.
My question to you is, do most consumers know the difference? Do you look at a beauty advertisement and know they are lying and instead see the ad as a work of art?
Honestly, giving you the real scoop on how a product works with actual pictures has been our mission for the past several years (celebrating 7 years on Oct. 26!) I’ve shown my ugly forehead in a review for Freeze 24/7’s Freeze & Go, I’ve shown my ugly neck in another Freeze 24/7 review of ArcticLift, I’ve shown my lashes for mascara reviews and so on. It is my personal opinion that REAL images sell themselves far better than anything photoshopped.
I’d love to hear your take on beauty companies photoshopping their ads: misleading or aspirational?