ASA criticises Rimmel’s mascara advert
The UK body, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), has upheld a complaint that the adverts for the Rimmel mascara are misleading.
The adverts claim that the dial-controlled mascara can achieve three different ‘looks’ by increasing lash volume with each setting, although lashes depicted in the adverts were supplemented with inserts.
Advert claims
In each of the magazine adverts, three photos were used to depict a model with progressively longer and more prominent eyelashes. Vertical small print text in each advert stated ‘shot with lash inserts’.
Similarly in the TV advert, model Georgia May Jagger’s eyelashes appeared to increase in length with each ‘look’, and on-screen text stated ‘shot with lash inserts’.
The adverts have been criticised as misleading because the complainant believed that the differing effect in each image or ‘look’ was achieved by using ‘an increasing number and length of lash inserts, which exaggerated the effect achievable from the use of the product alone.’
The ASA also challenged whether the small print disclaimers ‘shot with lash inserts’ in the magazine adverts were sufficiently clear.
Coty’s response
Coty UK Ltd, which trades as Rimmel London, has said it has no plans to re-run either the press or TV ads for 1-2-3 Looks Mascara.
It maintains that the images of Georgia May Jaggers’ eyelashes were an accurate representation of the three differing lash ‘looks’ achievable using the mascara and that the inserts ensured ‘a consistent and aesthetic lash look on a close-up photo shoot’.
Its claims were said to have been based on a ‘scientific digital image analysis study’ conducted in August 2009 which determined the percentage increase in the volume of eyelashes after application of the mascara.
Coty added that it had ‘complied with the requirements that qualifying claims should be clear and legible’ and did not believe that ‘readers would encounter any difficulties in reading the line.’
Complaint upheld
Despite acknowledging that the use of lash inserts was disclosed, the ASA said “because we considered that the use of different length lash inserts applied to the eyelash area was likely to distort the visual representation of the effect achievable from the use of the product alone, we concluded the images in the ad were misleading.”
In regards to the disclaimers, the ASA added “we considered that the size and the position of that small print were not prominent enough to capture a reader’s attention. We concluded therefore that the information set out in the disclaimer was not sufficiently clear.”
The ASA says the adverts have breached the CAP code for truthfulness and must not appear or be broadcasted again in their current form.
