This post was inspired by the recent article I've read about UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) acting to ban yet another beauty product advert.
Rimmel made headlines last year in the UK with the ASA putting them on a hot spot for putting false lashes on Georgia May Jagger in its 1-2-3 Looks Mascara ad. The advertisement (both TV commercial and magazine ad) was banned in November, because Rimmel failed to make clear that Georgia May Jagger's eyes were enhanced with artificial lashes.
The text and voiceover gave the impression that turning a dial on the mascara would provide thicker, longer lashes on a scale of one to three. In fact, the longer, fuller eyelashes seen in each image were actually created using artificial inserts. Vertical small print on the magazine advertisements stated the images were 'shot with lash inserts'. A similar line was run on the TV commercial.
The ASA said that while the use of lash inserts was disclosed, the ad did not make it clear that they were of different lengths. It was unhappy at the sample size used as the basis of the campaign's claims involved just five women.
Now, CoverGirl has ridiculed themselves in its latest mascara ad, which stars America’s Next Top Model winner Nicole Fox. The print commercial for LashBlast Volume promises a false lash effect. However a small print disclaimer running alongside the image states that lash inserts were applied to Miss Fox's eyes before the product was applied.
The disclaimer is at complete odds with the copy in the ad, which reads: Is your volume true? Or false? LastBlast gives you true volume. The small print, however, which is barely visible in the bottom left-hand side on the model's neck, reads: 'Lash inserts were applied to both of Nicole’s lashes to add lash count before applying mascara'.
What do you think? Should CoverGirl take the ad down?