Here's a novel concept: a couple of makeup ads have been banned in Britain for being ... well, full of LYING LIES THAT LIE. Parent company L'Oreal is under fire for using "misleading" digital retouching in their ads for Lancôme and Maybelline foundation makeup. They're also using celebrities—Christy Turlington for Maybelline, and Julia Roberts for Lancôme—and it turns out that however pretty these stars appear in the ads, the original photographs look nothing like the airbrushed final result.
Duh, right? Maybe she's born with it ... maybe it's Maybelline? Maybe it's 12 hours of painstaking Photoshop work, more like.
Part of me thinks it's a little silly to single out a couple of foundation ads in the sea of bullshit that is our advertising world, but part of me is standing up and applauding. Go, British Advertising Standards Authority! And hey, celebrities, how about just saying no to using ridiculously digitized images of yourself to sell impossible ideals!
The ASA is claiming that the ads don't reflect reality and that Roberts' and Turlington's altered appearances are likely to mislead consumers. While that can pretty much apply to every makeup ad that's ever been made, I kind of love that they cracked down on this in particular:

I mean, COME ON. There's no doubt Christy Turlington is naturally a beautiful woman, but GIVE ME A BREAK.
In defending this Maybelline ad for "The Eraser" foundation, L'Oreal admitted that they had digitally re-touched Turlington's picture to "lighten the skin, clean up make-up, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips, and darken the eyebrows." Interestingly, they refused to provide the untouched image to the ASA for comparison purposes, probably because no matter how lovely Turlington is, if anyone put the original next to the ad version, she'd end up looking like Shrek.
Ultimately, the ASA decided that since the images were so heavily digitally manipulated, the ads weren't representative of the results the product could achieve. Hooray for a tiny bit of sanity in the world of celebrities selling their image to promote unrealistic beauty ideals. There's nothing wrong with making a buck off your fame—but maybe when you're allowing your face to become an outright lie, it's time to rethink your priorities, you know?
Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington are both in their 40s, and while their skin is probably a million times more flawless than mine was when I was 20, I'm sure no one really needed a standards authority to tell us they don't actually look like they're depicted in the ads. Still, I'm guessing other celebs will think twice about participating in an ad campaign that's just a little too full of bullshit from here on out—and that's not such a bad thing.
What do you think about the makeup ads? Do you agree with the ASA's decision to single them out?
Images via Flickr/David_Shankbone, Maybelline
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
How Tarot Cards Cured My Nightmares
Robin Gibbs Dies: 5 Greatest Bee Gees Songs (VIDEOS)
A User's Manual for My Daughter to Remember Me By
Stupid Reason #768 Kids Get Suspended From School (VIDEO)
Mom Confession: I Never Wanted to Be a Mother
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis
Vampire Sex and Vajazzling (it's...
Raising Digital Kids
Best Father-Daughter Dance Ever!

Comments (5)
While I applaud them for doing this, what I would REALLY like to see is some standards for actual photos in the news. While it's not such a big thing in print news, it's so easy to manipulate a photo online. I use as examples the two from recent events: the photo of Diana walking with Catherine, and the photo of the White House Situation Room that Hillary and that other woman were 'shopped out of.
Maybe they're not a big deal now, now we look at them and think, "inappropriate" (Diana) or "sexist" (Hillary). But going forward, those pics are kept for posterity. They will be available for research purposes. If we continue to alter historic events through the magic of photoshop, what happens to our own history? Think of what the world would be like if Photoshop had existed during WWII...
On a recent appearance on Oprah, even Stephanie Seymour said it was no fun being a model anymore because the end result would just be 'photoshopped away'. You don't have to be an Internet addict like me to know that a lot of those ads are photoshopped. It's like the must these days so I don't buy into them - I never did because I already knew that they had access to things that we 'regular folk' don't. Besides, they're hardly the women to vouch for those products - they probably get them for free whilst we have to fork our hard-earned money for them and there's not even a guarantee it'll work on us as there's always that disclaimer that results will vary. PonyChaser is right - some standards really do need to apply, if not for anything at least for PonyChaser's last sentence.
I have long been wishing that cosmetics ads could be a little more realistic. Why show results at all if the results pictured are completely fake? It just seems so underhanded. I mean, let the buyer beware, sure, but also, don't mislead the general public!