Register Now!

Do you think that's what Julia Roberts' face actually looks like? Well, you're not alone. The United Kingdom's Advertising Standards Authority recently banned a L'Oreal makeup ad (above) claiming it contained content that was 'misleading' and potentially harmful to women between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one.

The ad — featuring Roberts' seemingly pore-less skin, first came into question due to the outrage of Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson, who said that L'Oreal's adverts were "not representative of the results the products could achieve."

While re-touching and airbrushing techniques are standard practice in make-up ads, the Advertising Standards Authority (which sounds like a group of suit-clad superheroes) upholds the practice that all cosmetic ads must provide proof of the amount of touch-up work done to sustain a degree of honesty in advertisements. As L'Oreal was unable to provide the ASA with proof concerning the degree in which airbrushing played a role in Roberts' luminous skin, the ASA killed the ad, saying that it was potentially harmful to the self-esteem of teenagers... since few teenagers could achieve the same facial texture as Roberts without the aid of a sandblaster.

Now, I'm not sure which is more surprising: that the U.K. has an organization that seems to care about the negative effects media has on its people, or that the ASA actually seems to believe that there was once a time when advertisements weren't inherently misleading or false. While I don't foresee the U.S. applying this model to our own advertisements any time soon, it's a good reminder that ads are full of shit. Sure, the guy holding a Corona may look like he's having a good time surrounded by all those models tugging at his jeans... but he's probably not that tall.

Comments ( 13 )

Jul 27 11 at 2:22 pm
fishstix

So then it won't make me look like a horse either?

Jul 28 11 at 12:35 pm
Argent

is that you sarah jessica parker?

Jul 27 11 at 4:03 pm
Rj

Fuck you she's beautiful.

Jul 27 11 at 4:07 pm
Jeffrey

Such lively debate!

Jul 27 11 at 7:24 pm
dONNA

She's kinda got a Lord Voldemort thing going on with her nose going in that picture. Am I right, fellas? Am I right?

Jul 27 11 at 9:10 pm
Fancy

Opps, you caught the under-table fact

Jul 27 11 at 8:54 pm
ZekFoo

No doubt about it, she is major fine! I would totally hit it!
www.web-privacy.au.tc

Jul 27 11 at 9:33 pm
Wait Five Minutes

So given what Vanity Fair does to women on its cover, is that magazine going to be banned, too?

Jul 29 11 at 9:52 pm
Wait A Lifetime

What is VF's supposed 'misleading message' with such covers? You will look like this is you buy this issue?

*yawn*

Jul 29 11 at 9:53 pm
Wait A Lifetime

*if

Jul 28 11 at 9:49 am
MSM

Beauty is only a light switch or Photoshop action away...

Jul 28 11 at 11:09 am
thinkywritey

I like this new movement. I'm not sure their stated intention is really necessary; do we need to invoke the self-esteem of teenage girls? Can we not just stick with truth in advertising?

Jul 28 11 at 6:58 pm
GeeBee

Little bit of information. 1) It is illegal to make unsubstantiated claims in an ad in the UK. R.I.P. the famous slogan "Guinness is good for you". 2) The ASA is one of the few examples I know of a trade association successfully (for the most part) self-policing its industry.

Add a Comment