THE POP PIXIE WITH THE AIRBRUSHED BOOK COVER

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!

SHOULD ADVERTISERS BE ALLOWED TO APPEAR TO PROMISE US WHAT THEY CAN'T DELIVER

I’ve been pondering over this a lot today. Not that I’m a huge fan of Twiggy. Indeed I don’t really know what Twiggy does, except advertising M&S, but on investigation I have discovered that, in her youth she was a model, and later she became an actress and singer.

Of course this post isn’t at all about Twiggy. She is but a bit player in it. The post is about advertising, and the power it has over us, and how far we should let advertisers bend reality in their effort to sell us what they want us to buy.

Twiggy comes into it only because she has been advertising Oil of Olay beauty treatments, one of which is a moisturiser of sorts which they claim, or rather she claims on their behalf, is the secret to her brighter looking eyes. This claim is accompanied by a photograph of Twiggy with wrinkleless eyes, sparkling out at us. However, the reality is that, pretty and youthful though the 60 year old looks, she has bags under her eyes, crows’ feet and a double chin, as seen in another picture of her taken recently.

As I say, I’m not having a go at Twiggy. She looks great for 60. And we all know that show business personalities, male and female, make themselves look younger in publicity shots, album covers, film posters, etc, by the smart use of soft focus, good lighting and special angles, not to mention all manner of technical things that can be done with computers.

What I wonder is, when a personality is advertising a product designed to reduce the signs of aging, should her, or his, photograph be so doctored? Is it fair to potential customers of the product? How many people looking at that photograph of the incredibly youthful, smooth visage would seriously believe that, with the use of this product, they could look like that?

Men and women in the UK spend an unseemly amount on cosmetic, age defying, moisturising creams of some sort or another. (I couldn’t find a figure for women, but men alone apparently spend £1.3 billion a year). How much of this money is spent as a result of misleading advertising.... and what can we do about it?

Today the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the advertisement could be misleading, but they thought that most people would realise that a woman of Twiggy’s age could not have achieved this kind of complexion by using this product alone. To be fair Proctor and Gamble, the manufacturers of the product have apparently replaced the photograph with one which is more realistic.

But no one has banned the use of misleading photographs in cosmetics advertising. I think it’s big business fleecing men and women who are vulnerable to the pressures to remain young forever. What do you think?