ASA lays firm foundations for cosmetic ads

The ASA’s recent rulings about the use of airbrushing in ads have caught the attention of both the media and public alike. While advertisers are not prohibited from altering or enhancing images in all circumstances, if they do decide to reach for the airbrush, they have to be careful not to exaggerate the capability or performance of a product.

L’Oreal’s brands Lancome and Maybelline ran into trouble because they could not demonstrate that images of Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, which had been digitally enhanced, were an accurate representation of the results the products could achieve. As such we judged the ads were misleading.

Several high profile ASA rulings in this area have set a benchmark for what is and is not acceptable when using post-production techniques. A lot of work has also been undertaken to work with advertisers in the cosmetics sector to help them get their ads right. Earlier this year, the bodies that write the Advertising Codes (CAP and BCAP) produced a Help Note for advertisers on the Use of Production Techniques in Cosmetic Advertising. While the guidance is not intended to stop marketers using stylised images that illustrate a concept or how the product works, the Help Note clarifies when the use of those techniques becomes problematic. For example, it states that marketers should not:

• airbrush the appearance of lines and wrinkles around the eyes in an ad for an eye cream;
• use ‘before’ and ‘after’ photos that exaggerate what the product can achieve;
• Add highlights and shine to hair for a product claiming to produce shiny hair

As well as stopping advertisers from using post-production techniques to mislead about the performance of a product, the ASA may also intervene if an advertiser alters an ad to create an image that’s irresponsible. So if an ad was airbrushed to make a model look unhealthily thin then we’d be able to act.

We haven’t seen evidence that generally altering images has a harmful effect on the population (or on children), but if we did, we would consider it carefully and alter our position if needed.

It’s not just the cosmetics industry that uses post-production techniques. Nearly all ads we see today will have been retouched in some way shape or form. It might be that the lighting on some product packaging has been improved, a blemish on an apple has been removed or some stray hair on a model has been air-brushed out. But as with cosmetics ads, if the ad uses techniques that, for example, suggested a kitchen cleaning product could made your kitchen shinier than the product could achieve, then it would be considered misleading.

The ASA accepts that advertisers can promote their products or services in the best possible light. But if an ad goes too far and uses a technique in a misleading or irresponsible way, we’ll take action to have it removed or amended.

Key ASA rulings

L'Oreal (UK) Ltd t/a Lancôme

L'Oreal (UK) Ltd t/a Maybelline

Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd

Rimmel International Ltd

Coty UK Ltd t/a Rimmel London