But Nightingale droppings exfoliator, Snail Slime handcream and Fake Snake botox cream?
Dear God!
Well I’m sorted for humour for the next few weeks!
(And by the way I don’t Actually Buy the Daily Mail. We get it free in work, and I read it daily because I need to know if the worried general public are going to call after reading a scare story over tea and a full English)
Sorting through the Daily mail this morning (Why me?) Spotted this here.
I’m not commenting on what the Daily Mail is saying here, as its just a short report on an adjudication by the ASA. The Daily Mail seem to be watching the Adjudications page of the ASA like everyone else in the industry to
a) Gloat
b) Keep an ear on the ground to see what we can “Get Away With”
Now I’ll side with Avon (A competitor) with this one.
Why?
Well they did this by the book, but they still got fucked over by the ASA.
If you read the Adjudication, they submitted data, and took advice from Clearcast who were formally known as the BACC.
This is the agency that clears ads for TV. Therefore if they pick the bones out of your ad and say its OK, you should have no problems with the ASA. You can then spend £000′s on filming the ad and booking blocks of space to show it whilst people are out of the room making a cuppa.
Obviously the ASA don’t think so, and they’ve said not to show it again.
No refunds on unused blocks or the expenses of shooting the damn thing.
I bet there are a lot of people VERY pissed off in Corby today.
Women sacrifice food before cosmetics
By Guy Montague-Jones
07-Oct-2008
Most recently beauty retail website feelingunique.com asked 1,000 women in the UK about their shopping habits and found that the credit crisis may reveal itself more clearly in cupboards than bathrooms.
Beauty over food
Nearly one in three female respondents said they would prefer to eat less than reduce their spending on ‘essential’ beauty items.
The survey also indicated that three quarters of women also consider make-up and body treatments ‘everyday essentials’ as opposed to luxury items.
The results support the findings of a ShopSmart survey of female customers in the US carried out last month.
Supporting evidence
Polling 1,000 women by telephone the magazine concluded that female shoppers were more likely to opt for cheaper food essentials than give up their chosen cosmetic brands.
While 67 per cent would switch to less expensive brands for eggs and milk, only 30 per cent said they would be willing to turn to cheaper cosmetics.
Women are not only reluctant to reduce their spending on cosmetics but when their purses come under pressure they are more willing to scrimp and save on food, according to new surveys.
Brand loyalty also seemed more pronounced in cosmetics than personal care where women were more likely to trade down. A total of 48 per cent said they would be willing to buy cheaper personal care items.
Now I’m not analysing the methodology, possible bias or claims here, I’ll leave that to someone else to do the digging, but I will ask the question.
Using the Daily Telegraph version, which although they have done the cosmetic association with collagen which does make my skin crawl a little, Its actually pretty good, and certainly gives the background which is oh so important.
Kate Devlin: Good effort. You’ve named the source of the information, the results, and where its published.
The paper referenced is by Laure Rittié and colleagues from the University of Michigan who carried out a study, reported in the Archives of Dermatology journal.
They applied cream containing Oestradiol to “Sheltered Skin” (Skin that rarely sees daylight) and to photodamaged skin. They observed that collagen levels were boosted in the sheltered areas, but not in the photodamaged areas. The sample size was quite good for this kind of study (70 men and women average age 75) and the test material was applied 3 times a day for 2 weeks. This isn’t med standard, but the ASA would like this sort of study for advertising skin products.
The gist is that sun damaged skin didn’t gain collagen, wheras the “White meat” did. The author is quoted as saying the result was “Surprising”
What they haven’t told us however, is that you ain’t going to be seeing this on the shelf anytime soon. Certainly not any time soon in the EU.
Oestrogen and Oestradiol are banned in the EU for cosmetics. they’re powerful hormones, and as a bloke I wouldn’t want to lose my wrinkles whilst losing my ability to grow facial hair, shoot live ammo, and gaining breasts.
Creams are available commercially that contain Oestrogens. They are prescription only and are used for the treatment of vaginal dryness as part of HRT to decrease the symptoms of menopause.
So if you’re worried about wrinkles don’t nick granny’s HRT cream. Its not a cosmetic.
No doubt some smart ass is now going to try selling something claimed to work in this new scientific way. I’ll be watching and so I suspect will the MHRA
Lets make this clear. I like the idea behind the Dove adverts.
The idea of using everyday women to advertise your products instead of supermodels and celebs is a refreshing change in our “Hello Magazine” Society.
I’m not married to a supermodel or a WAG, and quite frankly I wouldn’t want to be. They’re OK for eye candy, but I can’t imagine discussing the finer points of philosophy and ethics with Posh and Becks at 3am in the morning.
The adverts in the TV media are common currency. Below are a couple of examples:
Now you may have seen in the media a report that all is not quite what it appears.
In an interview with New Yorker magazine, Pascal Dangin, who retouches photographs for leading fashion companies and magazines, claimed he had worked hard on the Dove pictures.
“Do you know how much retouching was on that?” said Dangin. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing mileage but not looking unattractive.”
Oh Whoops indeed!
Leaving aside the fact that the advertising industry in the US hated the Ads when they first aired, and were horrified when the general public warmly received them, Pascal’s comments do not come as a complete surprise to me.
I shouldn’t say that this revelation was greeted with a degree of schadenfreud in the industry, but I will comment that my CEO had a grin on his face like a Cheshire Cat when he heard about it.
Now this may be unconnected with the trouble that Unilever have been experiencing with Greenpeace in relation to Palm oil use
And I suspect that this revelation may also be related to the protest at the Unilever plant in Port Sunlight where protestors were dressed as orang-utans to highlight the sourcing of palm oil from unsustainable slash and burn
