Finally Some Control on Retouching in Ads?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

12/20/2011 04:05:47 PM · #4

The ad in question wasn't pulled because of photoshopping of Taylor Swift or her eyelashes, it was pulled because it made claims that the company obviously could not substantiate.

When I worked in product development on consumer appliance, we'd make claims for the performance of, say, a washing machine and claim that our machine produced "The Whitest Whites" compared to all competitor products. To make this claim in advertising, we had to test it to a standard, document the results, and prove the claim was true.

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/20/2011 04:13:36 PM · #5

that's kinda funny
now can we get rid of those skinny bitch anorexic fake ass models?

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/20/2011 04:49:35 PM · #6

Originally posted by Spork99:

This is true and not true. The idea that the "result" (the photo) was not able to be reproduced by the company is true, but saying it "wasn't pulled because of photoshopping" isn't quite on mark. It was pulled because the product couldn't back the claim, as you said. The image, however, produced the claim, presumably through the use of PS.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/20/2011 05:00:03 PM · #7

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Spork99:
The ad in question wasn't pulled because of photoshopping of Taylor Swift or her eyelashes, it was pulled because it made claims that the company obviously could not substantiate.

When I worked in product development on consumer appliance, we'd make claims for the performance of, say, a washing machine and claim that our machine produced "The Whitest Whites" compared to all competitor products. To make this claim in advertising, we had to test it to a standard, document the results, and prove the claim was true.

This is true and not true. The idea that the "result" (the photo) was not able to be reproduced by the company is true, but saying it "wasn't pulled because of photoshopping" isn't quite on mark. It was pulled because the product couldn't back the claim, as you said. The image, however, produced the claim, presumably through the use of PS.

Claims are written. The ad claimed lashes with "2X the volume", that is the entire claim of the ad. Now unless you have a way to quantify volume with an image, the claim needs to be backed up with quantified data, not simply an image that seems to show fuller lashes. The image illustrates the claim, but doesn't validate it. It's like the images of a white t shirt and a less white t shirt for the claim of "whitest whites" those t shirts could be any two t shirts or even the same T shirt, but if the company can't produce quantified data to support their claim, that claim is false.

Message edited by author 2011-12-20 17:00:54.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/20/2011 05:04:23 PM · #8

Originally posted by Spork99:

You are correct, but you're still missing the point. The initial reason that the BBB questioned the ad was the fact that the fine print actually stated that the photo did not represent reality. The response of P&G was to pull the ad, so the pulling of the ad *was* in direct response to the question of whether the photo represented real results.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/20/2011 05:05:04 PM · #9

Yeah, I agree. But, if the issue is that the photo, which has presumably been PS'ed, is the validation of the claim, and it is false, as a result of PS, is this not what was said?
I get what you're saying, that the legal issue is that they can't reproduce without falsifying through PS, but the fact that PS has long been used as a proof is worth noting, no?

12/20/2011 05:10:58 PM · #10

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Not quite. The makeup industry has been making claims they can't substantiate. They've been using PS'ed images to illustrate their claims, not substantiate them. In the past, their claims simply weren't challenged. They're only now being asked to substantiate their claims by the BBB and other agencies.

12/20/2011 05:14:10 PM · #11

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Claims are written. The ad claimed lashes with "2X the volume", that is the entire claim of the ad. Now unless you have a way to quantify volume with an image, the claim needs to be backed up with quantified data, not simply an image that seems to show fuller lashes. The image illustrates the claim, but doesn't validate it. It's like the images of a white t shirt and a less white t shirt for the claim of "whitest whites" those t shirts could be any two t shirts or even the same T shirt, but if the company can't produce quantified data to support their claim, that claim is false.

You are correct, but you're still missing the point. The initial reason that the BBB questioned the ad was the fact that the fine print actually stated that the photo did not represent reality. The response of P&G was to pull the ad, so the pulling of the ad *was* in direct response to the question of whether the photo represented real results.

The edited photo may not have been real, but had the company been able to produce data showing that they met their claim of "2x the volume", their claim would have been validated, regardless of the photo.

The language indicating that the photo had been retouched may have been a tip-off, but the claim is in the language of the ad.