From: Bowser on
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/
From: Paul Ciszek on

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.

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
From: Paul Heslop on
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)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: Bowser on


"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.

From: Bowser on


"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.

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/