Look 50 Years Younger
by Adam Nielsen, (13 comments)
I ran across this ad today on msn.com and it made me laugh a bit. Sorry about the poor resolution on the files, but you can clearly see that by applying a simple cream you can go from grandma of three, to a vibrant middle aged woman.
So being a grandma of three I did the opposite of what I usually do, I went to the site. There again was another example of the amazing results on the header, but when you look under the photo it says simulated imagery. dermitage.com
I am curious about your thoughts on this. Should stuff like this be ok, since consumers should be able to make their own decisions. Or is this deceiving the general public with made up photos ( horrible ones ). I personally feel that if it is something that goes on or in your body that there should be some sort of guidelines on the photos used.
Comments (13)
Nate Voss said:
That’s … hell that’s just evil. Comedic, sure, but deliberately aging a photo so you can de-age it for dramatic effect? Bad new bears, there, my friend.
Posted on October 1, 2007
DC1974 said:
I’m pretty sure they are both simulated. And actually neither of them looks okay — the “before” looks like someone who has been a victim of plutonium poising or something. And “after” looks like someone with one too many cosmetic treatments. What’s up with her eye? Is her face swollen? Glucosomine (or however you spell it) is the active ingredient in many wrinkle creams — so I doubt this is all that different than others. So it would suggest from their ads that you are getting results beyond what you are able which does call into question ethics.
Posted on October 1, 2007
Prescott Perez-Fox said:
This is just the Internet equivalent of those “call in the next ten minutes” ads you see on TV. Or the infomercial! It’s a cheap trick and you seriously wonder if -anyone- is falling for it. Then again, we still have spam.
I wouldn’t allow an ad like that on my site — but thus starts a whole conversation about web page advertising (and how it sucks).
Posted on October 1, 2007
Chris Henley said:
Wow, where can I get some of this!!?
Posted on October 2, 2007
Bennett said:
Good call Adam.
This is a sad ad for sure, but it isn’t as bad as some. The results are so ridiculous that it is obviously fake … right? The ads that are a little more subtle (but still dramatic) seem more deceptive. A good example is the ads that take a photo of a leg with a lot of cellulite and digitally air-brush it away (or the inverse). I did a quick visit to msn.com and found this example. This ad takes an air-brushed photo and degrades it in photoshop. It is a little more subtle than the above transformation, but it is equally deceptive. This ad also says that these are “simulated images: not actual photos”. I doubt that the average consumer realizes this.
Something should be done about these ads. Don’t hold your breath that the change will start with MSN.
Posted on October 2, 2007
Von Glitschka said:
LOL Too funny! At first I thought this was a new make up pen offered by Sharpie.
I don’t get the red pen? That type doesn’t look hand written unless of course the writer has robot precision to hand letter that red type?
Posted on October 6, 2007
Patrick said:
Back in ‘97, it looks like this woman was not only old & wrinkled, she got the crap knocked out of her! I think they hired an overzealous Photoshop artist. I’d hate to be a model surfing the web and realize what a grisly example of a human being they made out of me to sell some B.S. skin cream.
These kinds of ads have always been around & probably will always be around. Doesn’t make them right. I think it’s deceptive. Seeing numerous ads like this over the course of a day makes one wonder why they’re not using actual pictures of people who use the product. If it’s that remarkable, real photos would be a lot more convincing.
I agree w/ Prescott. Web ads are, for the most part, pretty terrible.
By the way, I’m still waiting on my free iPhone for repeatedly clicking my mouse to slap the belly of the sumo wrestler on a banner ad. Ridiculous!
Posted on October 9, 2007
mindem said:
My grandma had 35 grandkids, lived to be 94, ate like a pig, and never looked that bad. What a crock.
The photochopping looks like it was done by some overbearing CEO’s 12-year old kid.
Posted on October 10, 2007
mindem said:
My grandma had 35 grandkids, lived to be 94, ate like a pig, and never looked even one tenth that bad. The photochopping looks like it was done by some overbearing CEO’s 12-year old kid.
Posted on October 10, 2007
mindem said:
My grandma had 35 grandkids, lived to be 94, ate like a pig, and never looked even one tenth that bad. I like how the “before” picture has the hair of a 20-something. The photochopping looks like it was done by some overbearing CEO’s 12-year old kid.
Posted on October 10, 2007
Geoff Thibeau said:
I agree that subtle changes are more deceptive (see Bennett’s post). And, as all the others have said above me, the Photoshop job is laughable.
So the real question, I think, is whether or not the ad’s target audience understands the exaggeration. And that would determine whether or not the ad is deceptive.
And with regards to these ads, I’d argue that they are deceiving their target audience.
Posted on October 15, 2007
Colleen said:
Ha! I saw this ad too and it made me laugh. It’s entertaining and I sincerely hope they are poking fun at themselves. They have “simulated” on the ad, so what’s the harm?
Posted on October 23, 2007
Andre said:
I love this aging fake stuff. Remember the Dove video he he.
Posted on November 14, 2007