Apparently, up to this point, it was OK to fake pictures in ads using “Photoshop” (which is not always “Photoshop”) to alter a photograph. For instance, Proctor and Gamble recently had an ad of some mascara that makes your eyelashes look really big, but since the mascara “didn’t work as advertised,” as it were, the just “Photoshopped” (or “GIMPed” or whatever) the eyebrows to make them look like what customers wanted, instead of what the product actually did. <\/p>\n
It is actually rather astonishing that in 2011 it is still the case that industry lobbyists own this issue and have not allowed our representatives to make and maintain a legal and regulatory system that makes it not OK to lie to us blatantly. WTF?<\/p>\n
Anyway, a non-governmental and voluntary watchdog agency is now pretending to get all huffy about this problem and promises it won’t happen again:<\/p>\n
In an interesting move that should finally bring the United States\u2019 fast-and-loose advertising rules and regulations into line with the UK and EU, the National Advertising Division (NAD) \u2014 the advertising industry\u2019s self-regulating watchdog \u2014 has moved to ban the misleading use of photoshopping and enhanced post-production in cosmetics adverts.<\/p>\n
source<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Why am I not impressed by this?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Apparently, up to this point, it was OK to fake pictures in ads using “Photoshop” (which is not always “Photoshop”) to alter a photograph. For instance, Proctor and Gamble recently had an ad of some mascara that makes your eyelashes look really big, but since the mascara “didn’t work as advertised,” as it were, the … Continue reading Interesting new idea: No faking ads<\/span>