A while ago I mentioned a case where Twiggy was using a heavily air brushed photograph to sell Oil of Olay. Someone had complained to the Advertising Standards Agency. They found no case to answer; no one, they thought, would believe that a 60 year old woman could have a complexion like that from using the product alone.
I disagreed. Some people are so desperate for youth that they will believe anything at all to achieve the perfect and flawless youth that the advertisement appeared to offer. They spend money they can't afford and end up disappointed when it makes no difference.
To be fair to Proctor & Gamble they did change the photograph that was used in the ad for something slightly less unrealistic.
I made the point then that if someone is selling oven chips, or holidays in Majorca and they want to use an airbrushed photograph then that is perfectly OK. I had no problem, for example, when David Cameron’s photo was airbrushed for one of the campaign posters...and to be honest I couldn’t see why other people did.
But I felt and still feel that, if you are selling a product that claims some sort of youth-giving properties, then you should be honest about the effects of the results of the product on regime and you shouldn't try to mislead with photographs so heavily airbrushed.
So why revisit the subject? Well, the other day my eye was caught in Sainsbury by a book by one time Scottish pop singer Lulu. I imagined it to be a biography, so I had a closer look (you know, Scottish lassie done well) and it turns out it is “Lulu’s Secrets to Looking Good”, so I put it back on the shelf. (Yes, I do want to look good, but I doubt Lulu’s book’s gonna be much good to me. Anyway, I'm pretty lovely without tips!!)
Once again though, I was struck by the photo on the cover. Now I’ve seen her from time to time on telly, and there is no doubt about it, Lulu looks fantastic for her age. At 61 she has a figure and face of a much younger woman, maybe of around 40, but look at the book's photograph. She looks around 20. If this were a publicity photograph for a tour, or an album cover, it would be mildly misleading but of no real importance.
But this photograph is trying to sell women a book of secrets to stay young.
It's not illegal and the Advertising Standards Agency would undoubtedly have no problem with it but I’m disappointed that the Scottish lassie from the tenements of Glasgow would use this kind of ploy to make money out of a gullible public.
Pics: Lulu's book photograph and one taken a couple of years ago, still gorgeous but not 20!
I disagreed. Some people are so desperate for youth that they will believe anything at all to achieve the perfect and flawless youth that the advertisement appeared to offer. They spend money they can't afford and end up disappointed when it makes no difference.
To be fair to Proctor & Gamble they did change the photograph that was used in the ad for something slightly less unrealistic.
I made the point then that if someone is selling oven chips, or holidays in Majorca and they want to use an airbrushed photograph then that is perfectly OK. I had no problem, for example, when David Cameron’s photo was airbrushed for one of the campaign posters...and to be honest I couldn’t see why other people did.
But I felt and still feel that, if you are selling a product that claims some sort of youth-giving properties, then you should be honest about the effects of the results of the product on regime and you shouldn't try to mislead with photographs so heavily airbrushed.
So why revisit the subject? Well, the other day my eye was caught in Sainsbury by a book by one time Scottish pop singer Lulu. I imagined it to be a biography, so I had a closer look (you know, Scottish lassie done well) and it turns out it is “Lulu’s Secrets to Looking Good”, so I put it back on the shelf. (Yes, I do want to look good, but I doubt Lulu’s book’s gonna be much good to me. Anyway, I'm pretty lovely without tips!!)
Once again though, I was struck by the photo on the cover. Now I’ve seen her from time to time on telly, and there is no doubt about it, Lulu looks fantastic for her age. At 61 she has a figure and face of a much younger woman, maybe of around 40, but look at the book's photograph. She looks around 20. If this were a publicity photograph for a tour, or an album cover, it would be mildly misleading but of no real importance.
But this photograph is trying to sell women a book of secrets to stay young.
It's not illegal and the Advertising Standards Agency would undoubtedly have no problem with it but I’m disappointed that the Scottish lassie from the tenements of Glasgow would use this kind of ploy to make money out of a gullible public.
Pics: Lulu's book photograph and one taken a couple of years ago, still gorgeous but not 20!
