Britian to ban "Photoshoped" ads?
Bowser
opportunity to pile on:
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/
Paul Ciszek
In article <hdili512rhgv811hr...@4ax.com>,
Seems like a pretty clear case of false advertising to me.
The ad claims that the creme made her eyes look "young", while in fact it
was photoshop.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Rich
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <hdili512rhgv811hr...@4ax.com>,
> Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
> >Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the
> >opportunity to pile on:
> >
> >http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/
>
> Seems like a pretty clear case of false advertising to me.
> The ad claims that the creme made her eyes look "young", while in fact it
> was photoshop.
Most before and after ads are scams, with clear photo manipulation or
lighting adjustments being used. But the average ape looking at them
doesn't understand it, so they can sell their worthless crap to lots
of people.
Paul Heslop
hardly a dump on... it's blatant false advertising and people have
complained that by airbrushing images they are giving ideals to people
which are impossible to live up to.
dump on the magazines/advertisers
--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Bowser
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4B2B233D...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Bowser wrote:
>>
>> Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the
>> opportunity to pile on:
>>
>> http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/
>
> hardly a dump on... it's blatant false advertising and people have
> complained that by airbrushing images they are giving ideals to people
> which are impossible to live up to.
>
> dump on the magazines/advertisers
>
> --
> Paul (we break easy)
Well, you've got me here. But is there any advertising that isn't *false*
advertising? It seems to be the nature of the beast; press the boundaries of
lying and see if you can dupe suckers into spending money. This is an
extreme example, but only by a few degrees, really. Did you check the links
to the "thin" model? That one was much worse.
Bowser
"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hgevl9$es4$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <hdili512rhgv811hr...@4ax.com>,
> Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the
>>opportunity to pile on:
>>
>>http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/
>
> Seems like a pretty clear case of false advertising to me.
> The ad claims that the creme made her eyes look "young", while in fact it
> was photoshop.
No question, but what ads aren't fake? Like this one:
whisky-dave
> Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the
>>opportunity to pile on:
>>
>>http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/
>
> Seems like a pretty clear case of false advertising to me.
> The ad claims that the creme made her eyes look "young", while in fact it
> was photoshop.
Maybe it could be rebadged as an ad for photoshop.
I now have this image of women going it to chemist/drug stores and asking
for
photoshop to make their eyes look younger and an assistant asking if they
want a
Mac or a PC version :-)
Well it's Chritmas almost.
Paul Ciszek
In article <fYKWm.164$5N3...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com>,
Bowser <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>
>Well, you've got me here. But is there any advertising that isn't *false*
>advertising? It seems to be the nature of the beast; press the boundaries of
>lying and see if you can dupe suckers into spending money. This is an
>extreme example, but only by a few degrees, really. Did you check the links
>to the "thin" model? That one was much worse.
The thing is, the Ralph Lauren ad isn't selling the model, they're
selling clothes. If it were an ad for a weight loss program, THEN
you would have false advertizing, exactly like the photoshopped
Twiggy ad is falsely advertizing the ability of the product to
remove age lines.
The Ralph Lauren skinnified model is every bit as wrong as that
creative genius who put on a fashing show using motorized wire
frame robots to wear the clothes--but neither one can be accused
of falsely advertizing what they are selling. Both are saying,
"We sell clothes that no woman alive can wear".
J. Clarke
Makes me glad I don't live in the UK.
Bowser
"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hgg3eu$rht$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <fYKWm.164$5N3...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com>,
> Bowser <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>>
>>Well, you've got me here. But is there any advertising that isn't *false*
>>advertising? It seems to be the nature of the beast; press the boundaries
>>of
>>lying and see if you can dupe suckers into spending money. This is an
>>extreme example, but only by a few degrees, really. Did you check the
>>links
>>to the "thin" model? That one was much worse.
>
> The thing is, the Ralph Lauren ad isn't selling the model, they're
> selling clothes. If it were an ad for a weight loss program, THEN
> you would have false advertizing, exactly like the photoshopped
> Twiggy ad is falsely advertizing the ability of the product to
> remove age lines.
>
> The Ralph Lauren skinnified model is every bit as wrong as that
> creative genius who put on a fashing show using motorized wire
> frame robots to wear the clothes--but neither one can be accused
> of falsely advertizing what they are selling. Both are saying,
> "We sell clothes that no woman alive can wear".
So true. I've NEVER liked the look of those "hanger bodies" who parade the
runways; they look sickly. I agree that the Skinny model ad isn't as bad as
the face job, though. The Twiggy add is outright fraud.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to Photoshop my eyes. And let's not forget
the basic rule of grammar here:
Don't verb nouns.
Paul Heslop
I agree that advertising, at least visual advertising, is a crock,
generally. :O)
--
Paul (we break easy)
Allen
<snip>
> Don't verb nouns.
And limit misspelled words in subjects to no more than one.
Allen
John McWilliams
> Bowser wrote:
> <snip>
>> Don't verb nouns.
> And [do] limit misspelled words in subjects to (no more than) one.
And "don't" put in "quotes" that which does "not belong" in quotation marks.
--
john mcwilliams
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Well, you've got me here. But is there any advertising that isn't *false*
> advertising?
Of course there is.
> It seems to be the nature of the beast; press the boundaries of
> lying and see if you can dupe suckers into spending money. This is an
> extreme example, but only by a few degrees, really.
The difference between first degree burns (e.g. a bit red due to sunburn)
and third degree burns (may require grafting, produces scarring,
etc.) are only 2 degrees ... really!
-Wolfgang
Paul Furman
>
> Paul Ciszek wrote
>>> Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the
>>> opportunity to pile on:
>>>
>>> http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/
>>
>> Seems like a pretty clear case of false advertising to me.
>> The ad claims that the creme made her eyes look "young", while in fact it
>> was photoshop.
>
> No question, but what ads aren't fake? Like this one:
>
> http://shine.yahoo.com/event/fallbeauty/image-of-ultra-thin-ralph-lauren-model-sparks-outrage-521480/
The 'Photoshop Disasters' blog folks should have sued Ralph Lauren for a
false DMCA action.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam