You would think a picture like this from UK singer, Cheryl Cole‘s latest L’Oréal ad campaign would have people running out the door for the same luscious locks — the only problem is it’s not exactly her luscious locks.
In a commercial which aired in the UK, Cole is wearing hair extensions said to have cost almost $1,700 to give her volume and shine that she actually attributes to the Elvive Full Restore 5 line. Although a small disclaimer in the ad appears momentarily, so far 13 complaints have already poured in to UK’s Advertising Standards Authority about the misleading image.
The ASA, however, does not think it broke any rules though, as they wrote to a complainant: “A problem would only arise if the ad did not make clear that she is wearing these extensions.
Here’s the commercial below…see if you catch the disclaimer about her extensions:
I rather see real results for the products advertised myself…thought they could so make bank by using images like these for an actual hair extension commercial, yeah?
Thoughts? Do you think it’s wrong that extensions are used at all for hair commercials?
x
Shy
I think it’s wrong, but anyone who thinks this is a novelty is kidding him/herself. Virtually all beauty/health products feature digitally or otherwise enhanced images, so why the fuss now? I don’t agree with it, but does everyone honestly think that Proactiv made Jessica Simpson and Jennifer Love-Hewitt’s skin that clear? And that the two aren’t wearing concealer/cover-up when they shoot those ads? Ditto with all the hair commercials, people do not just walk out of the shower, dry their hair and then look like that. Whoever the model is in the advert has had someone working on her hair for a couple of hours to make it look that way.
It’s not right by any means, but I don’t think this is new or a cause for targeted accusations. If people really want to make a controversy out of it, then they should point their fingers at the use of enhancing in advertising period.
I don’t think people really realize just HOW digitally altered these pics/ads are though — like if I saw this ad, I would think she probably has good hair and just had a really good hair team to do it up..not that it was a chock full o’ extensions. Seems like Europe is being way more proactive about exposing this even more!
yeah i can’t believe this is being raised now. nothing on tv/print is unaltered. except kim kardashian’s beauty of course.
whoa. she is HOT. end of discussion.
Ya but it depends on what they’re advertising… Even with touch ups one would assume the hair in the add had at some point been treated with that product… not pulled off the shelf. It’d be like advertising anti-aging creme with a 25 yr old model