The Ed.
Well-Known Member
The ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) must be one busy place to work. Between vetting all ads, identifying unreasonable photoshopping (erm, any?) and rooting out crazy claims not backed up by real evidence...it's amazing they allow any ads through to production.
Unluckily for Nivea, they've taken a close look at their latest print ad and decided that humans are simply not that smooth. The banned ad in question promotes Nivea's Vital Anti-Age Cream and the ASA reckon that not only it is "misleading", it has also "exaggerated the effect." Nivea have also been reprimanded for their gratuitous use of photoshopping to make Cindy Joseph, the 62 year old model, look considerably younger than she is. Ouch.
Nivea's claims that the product turns back the clock on human ageing by reducing "all major sings of mature skin ageing [and] wrinkles", improving skin firmness and previnting age spots, were found by the ASA to be unverified by evidence.
"We considered that the image of the older model, who was in the centre of the show, had undergone extensive retouching resulting in substantial changes to the models' appearance. Lines and wrinkles on her face, particularly around the eye and mouth area, had been dramatically reduced and several age spots had been removed. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the effect was inline with that which could be achieved through use of the product, we concluded that the ad misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims "anti-age"."
Nivea hardly apologised but responded by saying, "We regret the fact that this image has been considered misleading, as this never our intention." Never your intention? Perhaps the photoshopping and unverified claims were accidental then?
Until then...geek on!
The Ed.
Unluckily for Nivea, they've taken a close look at their latest print ad and decided that humans are simply not that smooth. The banned ad in question promotes Nivea's Vital Anti-Age Cream and the ASA reckon that not only it is "misleading", it has also "exaggerated the effect." Nivea have also been reprimanded for their gratuitous use of photoshopping to make Cindy Joseph, the 62 year old model, look considerably younger than she is. Ouch.
Nivea's claims that the product turns back the clock on human ageing by reducing "all major sings of mature skin ageing [and] wrinkles", improving skin firmness and previnting age spots, were found by the ASA to be unverified by evidence.
"We considered that the image of the older model, who was in the centre of the show, had undergone extensive retouching resulting in substantial changes to the models' appearance. Lines and wrinkles on her face, particularly around the eye and mouth area, had been dramatically reduced and several age spots had been removed. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the effect was inline with that which could be achieved through use of the product, we concluded that the ad misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims "anti-age"."
Nivea hardly apologised but responded by saying, "We regret the fact that this image has been considered misleading, as this never our intention." Never your intention? Perhaps the photoshopping and unverified claims were accidental then?
Until then...geek on!
The Ed.
