Well, not really, but their recent ads for L’Oréal brands were. Roberts’ ad for Lancome and Turlington’s for Maybelline weren’t exactly risque, but they did show a little too much skin–as in airbrushed skin.
Now, we all know that advertisers are famous for airbrushing the models who grace the pages of magazines–a nip here, a tuck there, some whiter teeth perhaps. But what’s got Britain’s stiff upper lip quivering is the fact that these famous faces were airbrushed extensively–and they were both hawking products for the face: Roberts for a new illuminating face cream and Turlington for–get this–an “erasing” foundation.
False advertising much?
Look, I want my skin to look as perfect as possible, but I’m also not looking for an instant miracle. I get it that some products take time to work their magic. And I understand that companies want customers to realize the potential of what their makeup could do with regular use. But L’Oréal UK stated that Turlington’s ad was “digitally retouched to lighten the skin, clean up makeup, reduce dark shadows and shadowing around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows.”
Um, isn’t that what makeup is supposed to do in the first place? I’m not exactly feeling secure about the promises of L’Oréal products right now. And apparently, this isn’t the first time that the cosmetic company has miffed Britain’s Advertising Standards Agency: Penelope Cruz’s 2007 ad for L’Oréal’s Telescopic mascara failed to note that the star was wearing false eyelashes for effect. Hmmm.
What are your thoughts on airbrushing in advertisements? Sound off below.