This TV commercial for “L’Oréal Elvive Full Restore 5″ shampoo and conditioner has drawn criticism in the United Kingdom. The reason? Singer Cheryl Cole, the woman featured in the commercial, is wearing expensive hair extension, that cost up to £1,000 pounds ($1650). It would be thus impossible to obtain the same look by simply using the shampoo.
During her TV commercial, a message flashes up, saying her hair is “styled with some natural extensions”, but it remains on screen for fewer than two seconds of its 30-second duration. In magazine advertisements, the hair extensions are mentioned in print 2mm high.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it had rejected 13 complaints that the ads were misleading because the disclaimer about Cole’s hair extensions was “clear and legible”.
And what about L’Oreal’s take on this? From the Times:
A spokeswoman for L’Oréal said she “did not know” whether Cole used human or artificial extensions. A company statement said: “Cheryl has worn hair extensions for some time. They are part of her look and are cared for in the same way as normal hair.”
Although Demi Moore has denied that her W cover was dramatically Photoshopped to accidentally remove part of her hip, a photographer who also noticed it is calling bullshit… to the tune of $5,000.
Following controversy about her body proportions on the current W cover, Demi Moore posted the following message on Twitter:
With a link to the following image:
Professional photographer Antony Citrano reacted to this post by saying:
Whether or not her hip was botched, I do not believe for a moment that the image Demi posted yesterday [on Twitter] is the original shot. If she’s aware of that – and I expect she is – it’s irresponsible (and silly) of her to make that assertion.So, I’ll see her move and raise her $5,000: if the shot she posted yesterday is really the unretouched original, I will donate $5,000 to a charity of her choosing.
This song would be just about brilliant for the Illusionists docu soundtrack! The Care Bears on Fire is a band from Brooklyn, NY: Sophie (lead vocals, guitarist, 13 years old), Izzy (drummer, 13 years old) and Jena (Bass, 15 years old) are my new heroines! I can’t wait to see what they’ll do next.
These awful, über-sexist Reebok EasyTone ads were conceived by the ad agency DDB Chicago:
Now, if you go to DDB’s official website you will notice some interesting quotes:
“Values”
(Who We Are > Roots)
Respect for Our World
As influential communicators, DDB is in a position to use creativity as a force for good. As Bill Bernbach so eloquently put it, “All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or we can help lift it onto a higher level.”
(emphasis mine)
Interesting. Could you watch the commercials one more time, keeping in mind the above statement? Don’t you notice a huge disconnect?
To complain to DDB for the aforementioned ads you can contact Jeff Swystun, DDB Chief Communications Officer : Jeff.Swystun@ddb.com or address something to him, in 140 characters or less, to his Twitter account: @JeffSwystun
Babies’ eye colour, skin tone – and even the fat creases on their arms – are altered before the images are put on glossy magazine front covers.
Politicians and industry experts described the practice as “shocking” and said it would put further pressure on parents who wanted their babies to be perfect.
Last night I had dinner with a couple of friends. Christine, one of them, had just returned from New York and brought me back a book called “Body Outlaws – Rewriting the Rules of Beauty and Body Image,” a collection of frank, powerful, and sometimes humorous essays about self-image.
I started reading passages from it on the subway on my way home. Carolyn Mackler’s “Memoirs of a (sorta) Ex-Shaver” – about women’s travails with body hair – made a strong impression on me, because the ultimate message is very close to the thesis of The Illusionists.
Here’s my favorite passage:
Why had body hair become such a nemesis for women? It poses no health risks. It is not hygienic to remove; it is not cleansing to shave. Rather, the complications arise during the eradication: cuts, infections, rashes, ingrown hairs, dry skin, burning. Is this hairless ideal yet another variation on the tune of ‘let’s take the best (boobs, curves in some places, hair in very few places) and leave the rest (hips, curves in other places, hair in lots of other places)’? Or is it: ‘Let’s make women look like 8-year-olds so we can treat them as such’? Or is it: ‘If women can fill up their extra hours shaving and obsessing about their bodies, then they won’t have spare time to plot world takeover’? Or maybe it’s: ‘Women are so grossly overpaid and just don’t spend enough on pads, tampons, pantyliners, Ibuprofen, shampoos, conditioners, deodorants, that we should coax them to buy razors, waxes, creams and bleaches.’ A-ha, it’s probably: ‘How about setting another unattainable ideal for women so they will always fall short of the mark.’ I mean, what are women if they’re not feeling insecure about something or another?
Finally, a film about an amazing, inspirational woman (who’s not a showgirl or a bimbo), directed by a super talented female filmmaker. Will rush to the movie theater the day this film comes out.
