Advertising

British Ad Nannies Acknowledge That Julia Roberts Is Attractive, Ban Photoshopped Makeup Ad Featuring Her Anyway

|

Too Pretty a Woman?

British ad regulators have banned a makeup ad featuring Julia Roberts, who, thanks to some digital touch-up work, was apparently too pretty to be in the ad. PC Magazine has the story:

Buying a certain type of foundation won't make you look like Julia Roberts, and Julia Roberts certainly doesn't look the same as she did when she hit it big with "Pretty Woman" in 1990. But the magic of Photoshop can make the actress, or anybody, look like a flawless 20-something, and for that reason a L'Oreal ad showing Roberts with an unattainably immaculate complexion has been yanked in the U.K.

The U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has called the two-page ad "misleading" and ordered that it "not appear in its current form again."

The advertising watchdog group also pulled another ad, this one featuring model Christy Turlington for L'Oreal-owned Maybelline Cosmetics. The ad was also deemed "misleading."

"On the basis of the evidence we had received we could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated what effect the product could achieve, and that the image had not been exaggerated by digital post production techniques," read the ASA ruling.

L'Oreal defended its ad on the grounds that it featured "an aspirational picture of beautiful radiant skin," which is what they say their product helps its wearers achieve. And in its ruling, the ASA was kind enough to acknowledge "that Julia Roberts was an actress well known for her beauty, and that professional styling and make-up were used to create the image" and that "high quality studio photography, and the inherent covering and smoothing nature of the product also contributed to the image of flawless skin." The board even granted that L'Oreal's product produced real results, noting that "pictures supplied from laboratory testing were evidence that the product was capable of improving skin's appearance." But not enough, apparently, to account for the complexion on display in the ad: "We could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated what effect the product could achieve," the regulators declared. So it's OK for advertisers to encourage potential customers to aspire to look like a heavily made-up, carefully lit celebrity like Julia Roberts, but not like a digitally touched up version of the same? 

Banned in the UK!

NEXT: Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie on Seattle NPR station KUOW Right NOW!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If I’m ever on the Supreme Court and see a case about misleading advertising like this, I’m going to come up with the “Fucking Dumbass Test.” If anyone other than a fucking dumbass would buy the product because of the misleading image, then there might be a scintilla of liability. Maybe.

    When I was in law school, there was some feeling that the distinction between protected speech and quasi-protected commercial speech might mostly go away. There had been a couple of Rehnquist court decisions that looked like things were going that way. False alarm.

    1. I was a we child when they made the toy ads less exciting by forbidding showing the toys doing things they couldn’t in real life. Of course many children back in the day learned the important lesson of caveat emptor from Sea Monkeys, those tiny plastic soldiers from Helen of Toy and the cardboard Polaris Nuclear Submarine

      1. Those ads were just attempting to simulate a child’s imagination.

      2. Is that female in the ad supposed to be a mom or a girl?

        Are they meaning to say “Hey buy a cardboard sub and get all the hotties”?

        Are they appealing to the Mom buying shit for their son market?

        1. I’m pretty sure that is Mom.

          1. No, it’s a little girl. “Big enough for 2 kids” She’s the other kid.

            1. The smaller pic shows two boys in the sub. The hairstyle is not a little girls.I believe that is a Mom apron, not a jumper she’s wearing. there is something of a swell in her chest too, so unless hot teenage sister is playing Polaris Nuclear Sub that has to be Mom.

              1. OK, I can accept that. Still looks like Mom got knocked up when she was 11, though. I was a different time…

                1. The Polaris Nuclear Sub was around for a while. I had older siblings so it may have been advertised in their comic books.

                  1. I remember it in comic books when I was a kid. I coveted it.

      3. I mixed in my Sea Monkeys with magic rocks and playdoe.

        What it produced was not waterbound Monkeys per say….but they did take over my Dad’s work shed, formed what could only be described as series of feudalistic states and unified under a strong man leader to defend their lands against Gusser our family Springer Spaniel.

        Of course it was all for not as the dog simply avoided the shed and it ended up being our tabby, Panther, that wiped them out.

        1. all for “naught”

      4. Fuckin’ X-Ray Specs. First, they don’t work, then the band sucks.

          1. that band did NOT suck. they were fucking incredible and polystyrene is a punk icon

      5. Am i the only one who fapped to the sea monkey mom?

        http://tomheroes.com/images/COMICAD sea monkeys.jpg

      6. $.75 shipping? RIPOFF!

    2. Julia Roberts is hideous now, and she was hideous 20 years ago.
      Talk about advertizing turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse.
      She makes a toucan look like that Afgani girl with her nose cut off.

  2. I can almost see the advertising being borderline fraud if not for the widespread knowledge that digital retouching is used in these ads.

    1. Consider where this kind of thinking can go, though. Since the average consumer will never look like a supermodel no matter how much makeup she uses, does that mean it’s deceptive advertising from the get-go to use a supermodel to advertise the product?

      I think it’s one thing if they do a before-and-after that involves trickery or Photoshopping, but quite another if they just have a done-up model.

      1. Under this line of reasoning, the ad should be banned because it might lead women to think they are glamorous prostitutes.

      2. I said “almost see” and “borderline” because of the implied “before and after”. They use older hot babes for a reason. Natural beauty, professional makeup and skillful lighting and photography are still depicting a “realistic” image of a real human being.Heavy post-processing of the image produces an illustration rather than a photograph.

        1. The Playboy effect.

    2. But why should that be the standard? Why not proceed from the baseline assumption that the pix are not retouched?

      What purpose could there be in showing pictures like that in an ad for such a product other than to say the product made the person look like that?

      1. WTF? Everyone’s goddamned high school yearbook picture was retouched. Retouching is the de facto standard of photography since color photography became the norm.

        1. Then what is the use of photos in such ads?

          1. Then what is the use of photos in such ads?

            Because the purpose of photoshop is not to make people look like the ad in question (horribly bad photoshop work – the guy doing the retouch should be dismissed).

            The reason for photoshop is to make people look their best. There’s a difference between the appearance of your girlfriend or wife in the supermarket as opposed to a room lit with candles or the afternoon sunset. The idea is to present the best possibility, not the most common.

            It isn’t the model, the photography, or the lighting – it’s the shitty post work. And the solution is ridicule, not legislation.

  3. Another field government shouldn’t be in. Fucking statists.

    1. Your tax dollars at work, Limeys.

      1. Good thing we haven’t become that retarded yet in America.

        We haven’t, right? RIGHT?

        1. You certainly have.

          1. C-, not bad

  4. I disagree with the original premise. Why does anyone think this woman is attractive?

    Blegh.

    1. I agree. One of the most over-rated “beauties” ever. I see a hundred prettier women every day (when classes are in session, anyway).

    2. Even if she were gorgeous her horrific personality would uglify her anyway.

      1. Indeed. Also her filmography.

    3. I’ve never been able to stand the woman. I have never watched more than a few minutes of any of her movies. I just find her off-putting.

      1. She yells, “Whoo!” in every move she’s ever been in.

      2. Not that it has anything to do with censorship.

        1. PWN’D

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

      3. Eh, I’ve fucked worse.

        1. I had the same thought

        2. I’ve fucked better. Seriously, there is no “beautiful” woman more overrated than Julia Roberts, except maybe Lady Obama.

          1. It’s a lady?

          2. Jackie Kennedy-Onassis.

      4. Sleeping With the Enemy needed one more bullet at the end.

    4. Amen. Do something about that gargantuan piehole and maybe we can talk.

      1. Fucking this. Born with a chelsea smile. disgusting.

    5. I agree. Without makeup, hairstyling, etc., she is quite plain, as are many other allegedly “beautiful” media stars. I am going to give Jamie Lee Curtis some respect. She always dressed up well, and was considered “pretty” by many, especially when she was younger. (Even more recently, in Schwarzenegger’s “True Lies,” she showed how good she could look as a middle-aged character.) But awhile back, she went public with how she looks as a normal, middle-aged woman, without benefit of makeup or airbrushing: fairly plain. That took courage and integrity. Good for her. In Britain, actresses of her general, natural look get work all the time. But here, in Hollywood and Hollywood-influenced media, not so much: “Beauty” makeup is about as time-consuming and elaborate in films and TV as special effects alien/creature makeup. Some of the “beautiful” women you see in live-action drama and comedy might as well be wearing full Ferengi masks, as little as the faces they show on camera are related to their true ones.

    6. Because she’s smiling.

    7. I think she’s pretty. *shrugs*

    8. becasue she is the most beautiful woman in the world except my wife and two daughters. thats why. you probably like naked men better.

  5. All makeup ads and models should look like they come from, and work for the Post Office.

  6. Best fictional whore ever.

  7. Looks ‘shopped.

  8. What’s the whirring noise I hear, off in the distance?

    Probably just Jezebel, being very pleased about this ruling.

    1. Does anybody actually read Jezebel (except militant feminists)?

  9. The Limeys are just pissed all their women look like the Balrog from LotR.

    1. At least the Balrog was “hot”.

      1. 9/10 — I lol’d

  10. Roberts is the kind of woman that women think is attractive. Women’s attractiveness to other women is primarily based on the premise that in a pinch, in the right light, in the right dress, they are more attractive than that woman.

    see Sex And The City

    1. Women really need to understand that they have zero clue which other women are attractive.

      1. That is soooo true.

      2. What is odd is it is really easy for women to find out.

        Just watch a porn.

        What I hate is women who say it is men that make them have fucked up body images.

        Such bullshit. If men had anything to say about it women would have completely different hangups about their bodies.

        1. Most women in porn aren’t attractive. Or at least only a tiny portion of their bodies is attractive.

          1. I disagree. Porn girls have muscles covered by subcutaneous fat and look good. model-girls look like escapees from aushwitz which looks bad.

            1. generally speaking, models aren’t SUPPOSED to be attractive, as much as they are supposed to make clothes look good

              that is not the same thing. clothes “hang properly” on certain body types better than others.

              when it comes to women who look good, i tend to like athletic women of a crossfit, olympic weightlifting (56kilo division especially) or pole vaulter type physique…

              http://thechive.com/2010/08/16…..24-photos/

              but that’s me.

              but this is a fairly common misperception about models. they are SUPPOSED to make the clothes look good, not make men say “i want to fuck her”.

              some modeling types moreso than others

        2. Women are catching on, though. Which is why bigger asses are in vogue, and in 25 years, we went from women trying to make their butts look smaller in the 1980s to woman actually trying to make them look bigger.

          We are truly living in a renaissance period, gentlemen. Enjoy it while it lasts.

      3. … No, that only makes sense if the opinions of women don’t count.

        If you mean women don’t know which other women men find attractive, you might be right. But ads aimed at women showing women that other women like to look at aren’t wrong, they make perfect sense. Women are the target audience of makeup ads, not you.

        Just because many women like Julia Roberts more than you do doesn’t mean that you’re right and the women are wrong.

    2. I agree. The only attractive women in SITC was Kristen Davis.

      1. Mention that and many women will get a look on their face like they are chewing a cat turd. Which is the hot one then? Delusional grandma? Concentration camp redhead? Horsey McWitchface?

        1. I just need to make this crystal clear for everyone: Sarah Jessica Parker looks like a horse. And not a pretty horse. She is horrific. That is all.

          1. SJP was “kind of” OK in her “Parker Lewis Can’t Lose” era. But I agree. Without good makeup or at a wrong angle, she looked quite plain, indeed — on a par with Ms. Roberts, actually. Kristen Davis is very attractive to men, and so is Kim Cattral, though the Samantha character (a Mae West for the 21st Century?) is off-putting.

            I very much agree that women don’t seem to know what’s attractive to men. As an example, I agree with my young-adult son about women’s looks far more often than I have ever agreed with my wife.

            1. I liked her in Square Pegs.

              Whoa, I just dated myself.

              Well, because no one else will.

              I’m here all week.

              1. I was going to mention Square Pegs, too. In SITC she looks older but no better or worse. And in Square Pegs she was playing an uggo.

                People just agree with with what they’re told.

            2. SJP wasn’t on PLCL, you are thinking of Square Pegs. The romantic lead on PLCL was Jennifer Guthrie… whose last listed role was on SITC.

              http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0349274/

              1. Ha! Beat you by 2 minutes. That IMDB lookup slowed you down.

                1. Maybe so, but neither one of you demonstrated the Johnny Slash vibe.

              2. Thanks SF. Usually I double-check my memory before posting something like that, but I was rushed today. Strange. I watched PLCL (and the Ferris Bueller TV show) a few times, and Square Pegs ZERO times, and I retained the distinct impression after all these years that Parker was on “‘Parker’ Lewis.” Wonder how that happened? Oh well. Still, I have seen pictures of her from that era (probably SqP pix), and stand by my aesthetic assessment. 🙂

          2. She seemed OK in Square Pegs but she totally didn’t age well. Totally.

            1. Why aren’t there any female libertarians? Or are they like dwarf women–there, but never seen or heard?

              1. Everyone knows that dwarf women have beards and dress just like the men. So they’re there, and you’re looking right at them, you just don’t know it (and neither do most of the other dwarves).

                1. It’s like baby pigeons being so large by the time they leave the nest it is hard to distinguish them from adults.

                  1. So there are libertarian women. They’re just invisible. Gotcha.

                    1. Dude, we’re here. We just wake up later.

              2. There are Libertarian women, but generally all the ones I know don’t want to deal with the frequently rude dude-fest that are Libertarian gatherings and websites.

                I love Libertarianism and I love Reason, but seriously, I don’t comment here all that often because I don’t want to deal with the pileup of ladies wrong because they are ladies and my evopsych learnings and resentment say so!/ Let’s all be as rude about women as possible because that means we’re HONEST and not politically correct! / If a woman is too unattractive for me to screw, her opinion is invalid varieties of remark that infest these comments.

                It’s a free country, and we all should be legally free to say whatever we want without government censorship, but that doesn’t mean that speech has no consequences. A consequence of Libertarian men constantly making dicks of themselves is that women will find their company an unwelcoming environment.

                And yes, I’m a woman.

          3. I would hit that.

            1. Agreed.

          4. There are those who would disagree with your assessment that she looks like a horse. Seth McFarlane says she looks like a foot.

  11. I’m with Tman. Julia Roberts always baffled me as a sex symbol. I can find better looking Hooters’ waitresses, and they won’t have a mouth like a buck-toothed barracuda.

    1. I’ll bet those lips could probably suck the chrome off a trailer hitch though.

      1. I’ll take Monica Belucci instead, though

        1. Well, obviously, dude. That sort of goes without saying.

          1. Unless you’ve got a Sarlaac fetish:

            http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sarlacc

            In that case, Roberts is just your kind of babe!

  12. Up next: mandatory fat people in McDonald’s ads.

    1. Don’t think it’s beyond them.

    2. It’s hard to tell satire from prophecy these days.

  13. The UK: Crippling taxes and cost of living, surveillance cameras on every corner, the NHS, horrible weather, pasty doughy women, and constant government meddling in myriad personal and commercial liberties at every turn.

    I’m beginning to understand why, in every country I have ever traveled to, I find expats of UK origin.

    1. We have a few in Charlotte, and you’d be surprised how many of them left on ideological grounds, and how many have turned very pro-American — go expats!

    2. I live in Bloomsbury. I was woken yesterday by the wild, desperate wailing of a lunatic and thought “right there with you buddy.”

      1. I watched an episode of Shameless after seeing the American remake. Oof. If those are the people they have on TV, what must the rest of it look like. Yikes. It was like Eastern KY without pick-up trucks.

        1. I always kind of admired the brits for their willingness to put average schmucks on TV. Of course, I never considered that it might be due to necessity.

    3. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81695481/

      This brits in a wallmart video makes me happy.

      1. I’ve spent much time over there, and they don’t have anything that even comes close to being as useful as a superstore like Walmart.

        You know what would have made the video better? If shitty federal FFL laws didn’t exist, and the Walmart they were at had a whole guns and ammo section. Lmao.

        1. Well, apart from Tesco. They have pretty huge Tesco shops.

          But Walmart is still bigger. *Grin*

          1. It’s bigger on the inside.

  14. Her original skin is too dark for the look of the ad. It would have too much contrast. The aesthetics would not have been as pleasing for the overall look of the ad if they had used her original tones in her face and hair.

  15. If they really want to have an impact on false advertising through pictures, they need to target the escort ads on backpage.

  16. I actually agree with the ban.

    1. Well, at least you’re not trying to make some dumb-ass argument to try to get any of us to agree with your dumb-ass agreement.

  17. Gentlemen:

    It has come to my attention that my client has been defrauded by your misleading claims, in that the product he purchased from you did not function as portrayed in your advertising campaign.

    Accordingly, we are demanding…

    1. Quality

    1. Fuck. Yes.

    2. Eh, I’ve fucked better.

      The British Advertising Standards Authority has found this claim to be “misleading” and ordered that it “not appear in its current form again.”

  18. British ad regulators have banned a makeup ad featuring Julia Roberts, who, thanks to some digital touch-up work, was apparently too pretty to be in the ad.

    Wait… what??

    The U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) [???] has called the two-page ad “misleading” and ordered that it “not appear in its current form again.”

    Makes me think that if the Germans had conquered Britain in 1940, it would have changed not one bloody thing.

    1. You think THAT’S a mind-fuck? Try wrapping your head around the likely future — that the US is going to become a quasi-European totalitarian police state. Then try not reaching for the razor.

      1. Dude, have you ever been to Europe? Outside of Britain, the police presence tends to be much lighter than the US and they are much less likely to fuck with the average person (probably because of cultural and genetic homogeneity).

        The US is the place with SWAT teams serving search warrants for weed, not Europe. We’re the fucking police state. So maybe you should reach for that razor now.

        1. So, if we’re a police state, where do the people that find that fact insufferable go? Chile? Somalia? Got any ideas?

          1. That question has been asked on this site many times, with no satisfactory answers. The more popular answer is Costa Rica.

        2. And I don’t know whose ass you pulled that out of; armored police go in for drug calls in Europe too, marijuana included.

          What the fuck is this? Don’t tell me this is the “we suck, so our recourse is to pretend other places don’t suck even more” tactic?

          1. Spare me your armchair analysis. You verge way too much on the RAH RAH USA USA shit sometimes. All places suck, but for different reasons. And the USA is one of those places.

          2. The police here in the Czech Republic are lazy and corrupt but there’s a lot less of a police state vibe than in the US. Austria is much, much worse though. Guns are legal here, pot and prostitution are practically legal, although there is a lot of pressure from the EU to crack down, and it’s not like it was 15 years ago. They do have SWAT-like team here also, of course.

        3. “Dude, have you ever been to Europe? Outside of Britain, the police presence tends to be much lighter than the US and they are much less likely to fuck with the average person (probably because of cultural and genetic homogeneity).”

          Here’s a list of where I found that doesn’t apply:

          German cities, Portuguese cities, French cities, Swiss city (I’ve only been to Zurich), Ukrainian cities, Russian cities.

          Try Marburg and Munich especially. Walk 100 feet without seeing a cop car, somebody getting their shit being fucked with by a cop, or being stopped/harassed by a cop yourself.

          1. Russia and Ukraine are shitholes of the highest order, though, so it’s not even fair to compare them to western Europe, I guess

            1. I’ve never been pulled over by a cop in Germany. In Austria, all the time. They go out of their way to fuck with Eastern European license plates, of course. Never had any problems in Davos.

              It’s the general vibe that is important, I think. Russia may be a shithole, but there’s much more of a free-wheeling wild west feel to it. You get pulled over, you bribe the cop, you go about your business. It all depends on what you are looking for.

              1. if you want to look at euro police brutality (especially england and germany ) it’s all over youtube.

                google “corraling”

                also, note that when WTO had riots in europe, people DIED and got seriously injured by cops (whether justified or not)

                in seattle, they got a few ouchies and woody harrelson still did a movie

        4. yes, i have been to europe and that is complete crap.

          germany, for example

          the german cops are WAY more likely to hit the average person with their batons than US cops imo

          brit cops are pretty free with the truncheons, too.

      2. Try wrapping your head around the likely future — that the US is going to become a quasi-European totalitarian police state.

        The Future Will Be A Totalitarian Government Dystopia vs The Future Will Be A Privatized Corporate Dystopia (The Onion. May 17, 2000).

  19. The U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has called the two-page ad “misleading” and ordered that it “not appear in its current form again.”

    Without these agencies looking for our interests and safety, we would be like Somalia!

    Somalia, I tell you!

  20. If you discover that a woman is hideous the morning after once she removes her make up, can you sue her for fraud?

  21. Threadjack: Obama’s approval rating is down to 40%, and hoo-boo is Gawker butt-hurt over it.

    http://gawker.com/5826013/pres…..-right-now

    Best comment:

    This crap is hilarious if you have a shit-ton of money. But, since my husband and I are both recently out of work and we have to sell our house, this is a bitch. I blame the anarchist bastards that thought it would be fun to vote in the tea party traitors. After this circus, I hope we’ve all learned our lesson and we vote democrat straight down the line, just so we can get our ship from sinking entirely. We need some legitimate legislators with at least a tiny scrap of humanity. This pocket-lining power play is sickening to watch and has completely screwed me over. Personally, I think Obama has done a miraculously great job despite the shit-storm of crazy around him. All of this is a great embarrassment to our country and a personal tragedy for my family, one which we all may never recover from.

    Okay, guys, fess up: Who voted for a christ-fag Republican?

    1. Also, is it just me, or is the, “Obama is too much of a compromiser. If only he were more liberal!”, meme weird? Especially now that it seems to be getting more widespread.

      1. That’s always TEAM BLUE’s response when one of their dreamboats–shock–isn’t popular! It’s just their rationalization about how everyone would love the dreamboat if…just…well…

        They’re morons. You should know that.

        1. Dude, I wasn’t born for Carter and too young for Clinton, so this is my first left wing dreamboat exposure.

          1. Carter and Clinton ran more centrist. Obama ran as the “progressive guy” against Hillary so they thought he would fall somewhere between FDR and Che.

            1. ….when it comes to using violence in his foreign adventures, he does seem to fall between those two.

              1. ….with the avid, wild-eyed support of Hillary Clinton.

                1. …why his supporters go along with his warmongering…while they’re waiting for their handouts, they think a miracle will happen and Obama will suddenly become the peace president.

          2. After these last two clowns, I’m getting positively nostalgic for Clinton.

      2. It’s time to double-down on the stupid. It helps keep reality at bay a little longer.

        1. Honestly, I don’t think that liberals realize this, because I guess very few took Poly Sci. Elections are a referendum on the economy. We can talk about polls, we can discuss policies, but at the end of the day, the vast majority of voters look at their wallets and then head to the polling place.

          And the thing is, with the Democrats controlling the Senate and the Presidency, this is going to be a referendum on their handling of the economy. I don’t care if the Republicans nominate a rock, they will win the election if the economy does not improve.

          1. If they understood economics they wouldn’t be liberals.

            And they have never let the single most important fact about the 2008 election sink in… The swing voters didn’t vote for Obama, they voted against Bush. Obama didn’t have a mandate for leftist economic nonsense. He could have kept his head down, simply been Not-Bush and sailed into a 2nd term. The electorate gave him an inch and he took a mile.

            1. Ding! SF just proved he understands more about the 2008 election than the entirety of the DNC.

            2. Everyone in the media voted for him. I mean, they made a DVD about it.

              Note it “stars” Barack Obama (actor) and Joe Biden (actor).

              Irony? You decide.

              I wonder if it contained one of those soap opera voiceovers before the fist scene: This week, Barack Obama will be playing the part of President of the United States…

    2. I didn’t vote. Does that make me a better man?

    3. Okay, guys, fess up: Who voted for a christ-fag Republican?

      Why would I vote for shriek??

      1. I voted for Ron Paul, twice. He’s a republican. Definitely in with christ. Is he a fag? Maybe, he spends an awful lot of time around women’s vaginas without boning them, “won’t travel alone with another woman that’s not his wife”, and his son has a bit of a homo-voice, the hair flip, and a pretty hot beard wife.

  22. I disagree that it was Photoshopped. It looks more like someone used the Paintshop Pro Skin Smoothing feature.

  23. Clearly the people that banned the ad have never seen RuPaul’s drag race in which results like the one in the ad are achieved every day without photoshop. So, maybe they should resubmit the ad with RuPaul in it, instead of Julia Roberts. RuPaul is prettier anyway.

    1. Oddly, I agree with this.

  24. Here’s why I don’t support this ban:

    There is no Mr. Peanut.

    Seriously, Planters Peanuts puts a picture of a TOTALLY FAKE AND NONEXISTENT SENTIENT PEANUT on its packaging.

    A peanut that tap dances with a cane and wears a top hot and monocle.

    Since sentient, well-dressed tap-dancing peanuts don’t exist, can I conclude that I have been DEFRAUDED about the contents of my jar of Planters Peanuts?

    If this company had drawn a picture of a TOTALLY NONEXISTENT WOMAN WITH ABSOLUTELY PERFECT SKIN and made it the trademark symbol of their product, nobody could say fucking shit about it.

    If a total lie is permissible, if outright invention is permissible, how can a minor retouching of something that actually exists be banned?

    1. There are no “Peanut’s Studies” in college. There are, however, “Women’s studies”, and people who graduated with these degrees work for the government. So…

    2. “A peanut that tap dances with a cane and wears a top hot and monocle.”

      That reminds me, does the Libertarian Party have a candidate yet?

      Bear with me – the voters were willing to elect a peanut *farmer,* so why not a sentient peanut?

      As long the peanut was naturally grown in the United States, I don’t see a problem.

  25. This is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film “The NeverEnding Story”.

  26. I don’t know; I can kinda see the point behind this. It’s not that the ad promised “Use this makeup and you’ll look like Julia Roberts,” but “use it and your skin tone will look like Julia Roberts’ skintone in this ad.” Which is impossible, as her impossibly smooth skintone came not from the makeup or clever lighting, but from Photoshop. That’s an outright fraudulent claim.

    I see this as no different from the food-commercial laws requiring commercials show the actual food rather than plastic models of it.

    1. I’m with Jennifer. The whole point of this product–foundation–is to cover up imperfections in your skin, including wrinkles, and give your skin a certain finish. The copy for products like this typically makes claims that it will make you look “flawless” or “airbrushed.” The way her skin looks is what you’re actually buying. Photoshopping the image of the model actually wearing the foundation makes it a completely fraudulent claim. Whether women know it’s photoshopped or not, the ad absolutely doesn’t illustrate the product it purports to.

  27. He touched you up, didn’t he?

    Show us where he touched you up.

  28. Wow, OK man that makes a lot of sesne dude. Wow.

    http://www.privacy-tools.no.tc

  29. “British ad regulators”

    The first three words of this article point out the whole problem. Even if you believe that the heavy hand of government has a place in curing societies ills (which we obviously do not), why would you use the limited resources that you have to do so to regulate advertising. The fact that such a ridiculas agency even exist is proof that their government has way more money and power then they could possibly ever need.

    1. Because people are very, very stupid. How would they not make bad decisions if government didn’t make important decisions for them and protect them from evil companies?

      However, once they step inside the polling station, the magic of democracy makes them very, very wise. They are not sheeple anymore, they are *voters*. Presto, democracy in action!

  30. It’s not that the ad promised “Use this makeup and you’ll look like Julia Roberts,” but “use it and your skin tone will look like Julia Roberts’ skintone in this ad.” Which is impossible, as her impossibly smooth skintone came not from the makeup or clever lighting, but from Photoshop.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.