From the Ralf Lauren model who was photoshopped to an alarmingly small size (she was actually fired before the advertisement even came out. This was because she was “too fat”), to many photoshop and airbrush scandals, the fashion industry seems to be making their models skinnier, younger, tanner, and sexier with the depleting economy. Twiggy, the well known 60’s model, has decided that 2009 would be a year of comeback and stardom, as you can see by her latest add and website pictures.
A British beauty campaign featuring modeling Twiggy has been banned by an advertising watchdog group after it was proven that the she appeared heavily airbrushed in the ad photo. The 60 year old starred in ads for Olay Definity eye cream looking years younger, she claimed the “secret to brighter-looking eyes” was her use of the product.
The picture on the left, shows what Twiggy actually looks like in real life – a sad reality where botox and facelifts only go so far. Now, this COMPLETELY contradicts what her Olay add depicts. It’s a bit shocking at first, who are the two ladies side by side? They’re almost two different people. One possess the graceful features of a young 50 year-old, and the other, an aging, outdated model.
The only similarity between the two photos, is that both Twiggy’s are wearing the same necklace. The only similarity BY FAR that these two pictures posses.
The Advertising Standards Authority received two complaints that the ad was misleading because the image of Twiggy had been digitally retouched. In addition Swinson forwarded more than 700 complaints, gathered via her anti-airbrushing web campaign, that the ad had was not only misleading but also socially irresponsible, because it could have a “negative impact on people’s perceptions of their own body image”.
“We considered that the post-production re-touching of this ad, specifically in the eye area, could give consumers a misleading impression of the effect the product could achieve,” officials at the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said in a statement.
A combination of the retouching and the language of the ad was likely to mislead consumers, it ruled. However, the ASA rejected the complaints that the ad was socially irresponsible, saying: “We considered that consumers were likely to expect a degree of glamour in images for beauty products and would therefore expect Twiggy to have been professionally styled and made-up for the photo shoot, and to have been photographed professionally.We concluded that, in the context of an ad that featured a mature model likely to appeal to women of an older age group, the image was unlikely to have a negative impact on perceptions of body image among the target audience and was not socially irresponsible.”
P&G said that there would “always be differences between uncomplimentary paparazzi shots and professional beauty photographs”.
P&G added that it was “routine practice to use post-production techniques to correct for lighting and other minor photographic deficiencies before publishing the final shots as part of an advertising campaign”.
The company said that there had been some “minor retouching” around Twiggy’s eyes, which was inconsistent with its own policies; this had already prompted it to withdraw the original ad and replace with one in which there was no post-production work around the eyes.
Leave a comment
No comments yet.