woman that it needs to pull its socks up.’’
L'Oreal's reprimand for its 'fake lashes' ad will force the cosmetics industry to think again, argues Jane Bainbridge
When the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint against L'Oreal's telescopic mascara TV ad, featuring actress Penelope Cruz, it may have been a damning indictment of cosmetics advertising, but it would hardly have been a shock to most female viewers.
The ad in question focused on the lush, heavily coated lashes of the Spanish actress and claimed the mascara could make lashes up to 60% longer. While many women may yearn for Cruz's Hollywood looks, the reality is that the mascara will not give them similar lashes, as false ones had been added to give the actress a fuller flutter.
The ASA ordered L'Oreal to include a disclaimer in future, making it clear when its models are wearing false eyelashes and that the 'up to 60%' referred to the appearance, rather than the actual extension, of the lashes. In other words, the ads have to explain that what viewers see is not what they would necessarily get if they bought the product.
L'Oreal is by no means the only beauty or cosmetics company to fall foul of the ASA in this way. Indeed, it is hard to find one that has not been reprimanded in an industry where claims and dubious scientific studies to support advertising statements are rife.
Greater scrutiny
The reprimand could mean more disclaimers attached to cosmetics ads in the future, but a spokesman from the ASA is hopeful that its action against L'Oreal will have a positive impact. 'This ruling serves as a benchmark for all operators in this sector, so hopefully everyone will take note,' he says. 'Disclaimers are only needed if there is an issue like this, where the model was wearing false eyelashes. If it had been her own features, there would be no need for a disclaimer.'
Disclaimers have become the bane of the financial services industry, but the ASA does not expect matters to escalate to such an extent for cosmetics. 'This ruling doesn't set that precedent - the two are very different products,' the spokesman explains. 'Financial products can have a real detrimental impact on consumers if advertised wrongly, which is why [the rules for that sector] are more rigorous.'
Even if disclaimers do not become commonplace, there is no escaping the lack of belief women have in the advertising messages broadcast to them by the beauty giants. Yet there is some complicity between women and the advertisers: in a highly aspirational market, the advertising formula is for glossy ads selling the promise of a product.
'The industry is built on aspiration, but I think as a marketer and a woman that it needs to pull its socks up,' says Tamara Gillan, managing director of spf15, an integrated agency specialising in targeting women. 'As an industry we can do better, and it would be good not to create unbelievable ads. I do think there are issues for younger and less savvy women. It sets up an expectation, and that's a problem the industry has to look at.'
The product that stands out as an exception in this market is Unilever-owned Dove and its 'Real women' campaign, which broke the mould when it used regular women in its ads.
Gillan says it took the brand's ad agency, Ogilvy, to video the daughters of Unilever chief executives talking about their negative body images to persuade them to buy in to the campaign.
However, Dove's ads for the US market use thinner women than those featured in the UK. 'So even Dove has played within the bounds of acceptable reality,' adds Gillan.
'Clearly there's a revolution that needs to happen in the cosmetics industry around real beauty,' says Jasmine Montgomery, deputy man-aging director at FutureBrand. 'Suddenly people are starting to wake up to the realities they're surrounded with. Cosmetics is hope in a jar and doesn't do what it says.'
There is a strong incentive for cosmetics brands to ensure that their products live up to their claims. This was amply demonstrated in the wake of an edition of the BBC's Horizon programme in March, which investigated the claims of the cosmetics industry.
It found that Boots' No7 Protect and Perfect face cream did improve the appearance of the skin and helped to diminish fine wrinkles. Boots reports that following the broadcast, its shops were inundated with women clamouring for the product, with shelves stripped of it within a day. Practically the only advertising Boots subsequently carried out for the cream was to announce that stocks were being replenished.
Nonetheless, it is likely that brands will continue to overstate product benefits, according to Hooper Galton planning partner Olivia Johnson, who previously worked on the Dove account 'Beauty companies will be loath to give up those tricks,' she says. 'It's hard to show what products do unless you exaggerate. But these are regulated times and pressure from the ASA will cause a clamping down on these smoke-and-mirror practices.'
The cosmetics industry will no doubt be thinking hard about its future marketing strategies, and companies looking to massage the truth may now tread a bit more carefully.
Data file
ASA rulings against cosmetics ads
Jan 2001, Johnson & Johnson/RoC magazine ad for Retinol Body Contouring Concentrate
Ad featuring a Rubensesque painting was found by the ASA to be misleading.
It ruled the ad should not be repeated.
Feb 2001, Johnson & Johnson/RoC magazine ad for Retinol Actif Pur Eye Contour Cream
ASA ruled efficacy claims were not substantiated in an ad featuring a close-up of an eye from a painting, half of which was cracked. It claimed 'you can reduce the appearance of these wrinkles by 50% in 12 weeks'.
Jan 2006, BuyCosmetics.com press ad for EyeLifting Gel
The ad featured before-and-after shots of a woman's eye, with the line 'Reduce the appearance of wrinkles.' While the photos were shown to be genuine, the ASA told the company to ensure future advertising did not exaggerate efficacy.
Oct 2006, Clinique magazine ad for Repairwear face cream
ASA upheld a complaint about the wording 'a peptide complex enables skin to steer hearty cells to the base of a wrinkle and triggers skin's own natural collagen production'. It ordered Clinique to seek Committee of Advertising Practice advice in the future.
Jan 2007, Avon catalogue ad for ThermaFirm Face Lifting Cream
Complaints surrounded the ad's implication that the product's effect was comparable to surgical procedures. ASA ruled claims should not be repeated.