Prev: New to DSLR
Next: The Canon SX1 IS doesn't have a date stamp!
From: whisky-dave on 18 Dec 2009 08:48

"Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hgevl9$es4$1(a)reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <hdili512rhgv811hrk0m0nlska0peq2cc8(a)4ax.com>,
> Bowser <Canon(a)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.



From: Paul Ciszek on 18 Dec 2009 09:26

In article <fYKWm.164$5N3.21(a)bos-service2b.ext.ray.com>,
Bowser <its(a)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".

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
From: J. Clarke on 18 Dec 2009 09:31
whisky-dave wrote:
> "Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:hgevl9$es4$1(a)reader1.panix.com...
>>
>> In article <hdili512rhgv811hrk0m0nlska0peq2cc8(a)4ax.com>,
>> Bowser <Canon(a)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.

Makes me glad I don't live in the UK.

From: Bowser on 18 Dec 2009 12:30


"Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hgg3eu$rht$1(a)reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <fYKWm.164$5N3.21(a)bos-service2b.ext.ray.com>,
> Bowser <its(a)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.

From: Paul Heslop on 18 Dec 2009 15:28
Bowser wrote:
>
> "Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4B2B233D.ED307187(a)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.

I agree that advertising, at least visual advertising, is a crock,
generally. :O)

--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: New to DSLR
Next: The Canon SX1 IS doesn't have a date stamp!