The Beauty Backlash - is heavily edited advertising ethical?

JenIttels

Did anyone see the bbc 2 'The Beauty Backlash' programme on Friday? Some details are here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5074642.stm but it is a very one sided view.

One of the main points I took away from it was that certain beauty companies are purposely researching and playing on women's insecurities. It seems that advertising agencies spend incredible amounts of money researching what women are really paranoid about in regards to their looks and then use it in their advertising. The amount of post-filming editing that goes on is pretty horrendous (airbrushing all the way) and makes the beauty they're advertising impossible to obtain. Which is just false advertising and lying.

I personally buy L'oreal hair products because I think they're good performing products and you can get some good BOGOF offers. Now I’m questioning whether I’ve been sub-consciously sucked in by the adverts!

JenIttels

---DOUBLE POSTING DUE TO UPLOAD LIMIT----

I'm intelligent, I’m not obsessed with the way I look but I do have some insecurities and despite my long term cynicism of the 'science' of the advertised products I’ve never questioned buying the shampoo from the companies that seem to have no shame in lying to make money.

I know this isn't the greatest ethical dilemma of our times and the fact that I, and many others, have insecurities is the reason why these companies can get away with it in the first place. My point is that this has made me look again at who I give my hard earned cash to. It's a small step towards a more ethical lifestyle and away from ignorance but I'm all about the small steps!

I'll catch up with the rest of you more 'seasoned' green/ethical members eventually!

grimelda

I didn't see the show because I don't have a TV. I just wanted to note that L'oreal are notorious for their animal testing and hence I avoid buying their products.

I think it's obvious just by looking at advertising that the images of beauty are impossible to attain without airbrushing/surgery/hard core dieting/hours with an makeup artist. Of course they play on women's insecurities in order to make money. That they deliberately research where women's insecurities lie is something I did not know but it really doesn't surprise me at all.

JenIttels

None of it surprises me either but then i'd never really thought too much about it. Ignorance is bliss

gooismeid

The quasi-scientific jargon used by l'Oreal is utter bunkum and so are the fantastic test results they trumpet. Up to 78% more radiance? How on earth to they measure that, and how come they only need to test it for 2 weeks with 50 people? As the marketing experts said in the programme, if a moisturiser has a ridiculously high retail price of £100 then people will buy it just because it's very expensive and therefore more exclusive, not because it's 10 times better than a big tub of E45. As the Moneysaving ethic is about getting the best value for your money, then you should not be taken in by advertising at all! Buy it if you like it and make sure you get the best deal possible, but if you're buying it because you think it'll make you look like Scarlett Johanssen then you're just wasting your money!

JenIttels

Well that is just another thing that gets me! Scarlett Johanssen is stunning in everything i've seen her.

Why do the advertising agencies then insist on airbrushing her so that even Scarlett Johanssen can not look the way she looks in the final adverts?

Edited to add: Obviously I realise the reason is money but is crossing yet another ethical line worth the tiny bit of extra cash that they may make from airbrushed-scarlett versus normal-beautiful-scarlett? Especially as it COSTS money to pay people to do the airbrushing

gromituk

Not just women - increasingly men are having the same problems as the fashion/cosmetics industry turns its big guns on them.

Advertising is legalised lying.