Or profits. However you want to use it.
Advertising campaigners are…
Two points I want to make. Firstly, the advert for the Venus Embrace advert. The one below is the American version of the advert, but it says the same thing as the UK advert almost verbatim. Let me just point out before I continue, it is a FIVE BLADE razor. FIVE BLADES! And what is the selling point being declared about this FIVE BLADE razor? “Get VIRTUALLY every hair”. There’s FIVE FREAKIN’ BLADES! How can you only claim to get VIRTUALLY every hair? What is the point of having FIVE blades if even five of them can’t get every hair? That’s pathetic!!
[youtube=http://youtu.be/EpOo26i7fgc]
The other is the now criminal overuse of lash inserts in mascara adverts. How am I to make a proper judgement on the “best” mascara (assuming that obviously the criteria for the perfect lash is to have the longest) if ALL the mascara adverts show models with lash inserts? You might as well have done with it and buy the flippin’ lash inserts!! Not only now do mascaras offer length, they (allegedly) offer volume – so now you too can look like you have the lashes of a camel. I mean, WTF? For starters, I can’t really fathom the obsession for having longer, fully lashes. They are just eyelashes FFS!
[youtube=http://youtu.be/I9Fr9LENnvM]
Do the cosmetic companies just prey on all the bubble-headed ladies (and/or men, if they are not using their own targeted MAN-scara) that don’t read the “model wears lash inserts” small print on the screen? I can’t believe the cosmetic companies can get away with the whole “lash inserts” thing, just by needing to declare the model is wearing them. To advertise the product, they should have to show the models with no enhancements…ha ha ha!! Like that’ll EVER happen…
This still is from a Rimmel London advert with Sophie Ellis-Bexter. It not only declares that lash inserts were used but also says “enhanced in post production”, so not even the lash inserts were enough of a con job on their own. Shame on you Rimmel!
Just in case you can’t read it clearly, the small print reads “Filmed with lash inserts and enhanced in post production.”
RE: Mascara ads… here in the US we don’t have quite the truth in advertising rules as you guys do… ours just say “dramatization”.So, uh, yeah. I’m still trying to decide what part of the ad is funniest if it were dramatized. The model is dramatized? Her head? Her face? The concept of eyelashes? Heheh… anyway, now I’m watching the small print on EVERYTHING.Also, we call them false eyelashes or “falsies” (as well as false boobs and teeth). Another interesting deviation of language between us. 🙂
I have to admit when to comes to the Maybelline adverts and they start playing the little jingle “Maybe she’s born with it. Maybe it’s Maybelline.”, I change it to “Maybe she’s born with it. Maybe she’s surgically enhanced”!We have “falsies” – well, they are false teeth. But we do refer to false lashes as false lashes, but lash inserts are different, I thought. False lashes for us are a full set of false eyelashes, ones that you add with one of those lash clamp things, but the lash inserts are just partial sets, or can actually be added on lash by lash (how f*cking time consuming is that?). I just don’t get it. Wanting to have eyelashes that make you look like a f*cking giraffe. I’ll never understand it.