Another L'Oreal ad banned over photoshop allegations

01-Feb-2012 - Last updated on 01-Feb-2012 at 11:46 GMT

Related tags Cosmetics

Cosmetics giant L'Oreal has been landed in hot water once again over claims that digitally retouched images in its advertising misrepresent the results that can be achieved with its L'Oreal Paris anti wrinkle cream.

The French firm were pulled up once more by Jo Swinson MP, who successfully challenged the adverts, just as she had done last year with two other adverts for L'Oreal's brands, complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The magazine advert for the anti wrinkle cream featured a close-up, black-and-white image of the actress Rachel Weisz, applying the product.

Digitally manipulated

Swinson challenged whether the ad was misleading, because she believed that the image of Weisz had been digitally manipulated and therefore misrepresented the results that the product could achieve.

In response, L'Oréal said it had developed Revitalift Repair 10 to target the signs of ageing in the ways described in the advert. It said the ad sought to represent Rachel Weisz as favourably as possible and therefore every effort had gone into ensuring the most flattering set-up.

“Rachel Weisz had been professionally styled and made-up and then lit and shot by a professional photographer in a studio setting. The photo was shot using a lot of light in order to make the picture more flattering and to reduce the appearance of imperfections in the ensuing image by giving the image a soft focus and lower resolution,” said a company statement.

Styling and make up allowed

The advertising watchdog agreed with the cosmetics company, ruling that consumers were likely to expect a degree of glamour in images for beauty products and would therefore expect Rachel Weisz to have been professionally styled and made-up for the photo shoot, and to have been photographed professionally.

“We considered that approach was acceptable so long as the resulting effect was not one which misleadingly exaggerated the effect that the product was capable of achieving,” said ASA.

ASA also noted that the ad made a number of claims in relation to the product, which it also deemed acceptable claims to make.

However, ASA did state that although the image in the ad did not misrepresent the luminosity or wrinkling of Weisz’s face, it considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even.

“We therefore concluded that the image in the ad therefore misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims made.”