The ASA, which stands for the Advertising Standards Authority in the United Kingdom, has banned the cosmetic company, Lancom, from placing this advertisement with Julia Roberts in any magazines in the UK because it no longer reflected reality.
According to the ASA’s regulation, when they doubt advertisements, the companies advertising it have to submit previous photo and the retouched one to avoid misleading. However, Lancom has signed a contract with Julia’s company saying that they will never show her “before retouching” photo. That’s why they couldn’t submit the photo and were accused by the ASA.
Lancom admitted that they retouched the photo, but they insisted it has an effect on skin because they launched this new foundation after they examined skin for 10 years to make it perfect. One of the ASA’s members said, “Julia is beautiful so they don’t need to retouch her photo. I’d like the advertisement company to notice this reality.” If so, I wondered why they doubted the photo??
Even if the ASA could see the previous photo, how can they mark off a boundary?
“She is beautiful so this ad makes sense.” Or, “Compared to the ad’s photo, she is not that beautiful.”
I don’t know which answer is misleading. If the previous photo was already this beautiful, it might mean the product’s effect on the skin was minimal; if it was not this beautiful, then the effect would be more noticeable.
The decision to give or not give Lancom the permission on publishing this photo must have been difficult because the ASA members had no way of knowing if Julia’s beautiful appearance in the photo was really due to the foundation. These days, most advertisements are retouched so I don’t think anyone thinks that photos from ads are real, especially if it relates to cosmetics.
I just wanted to write a comical entry and didn’t want to sound like a critic, but this entry may be criticism because of my English... Anyway, I think the media are biased and don't trust.