Misleading? Really?
Yesterday, the Advertising Standards Authority rejected 13 complaintsabout a L'Oreal shampoo advert featuring Cheryl Cole.
The complaints were made because it turns out that Cole, rather than relying on the magical effects of L'Oreal shampoo to get her lustrous looking locks (how's that for alliteration?), actually uses hair extensions to get her bonce camera-ready.
That this came as a surprise to people is more surprising than the very thing they were complaining about.
Does anyone still watch a beauty advert and think it is representative of reality in any way, shape or form? Can they not see the thousands of pounds worth of make-up artists, lighting technicians and post-production effects required to make someone's hair look "stronger, full of life and replenished with a healthy shine"?
Never mind the extensions, Cole's hair looks more like a computer generated Disney Pixar creation than an actual head of hair in the advert.
Maybe the
suggestion at the weekendthat youngsters should be
taught how to "read" adverts wasn't as pointless as I
first thought.
COMMENTS
No comments added for this entry.
POST A COMMENT
