The advert for the Olay Definitiy eye illuminator features the model’s image alongside the testimonial, “Olay is my secret to brighter-looking eyes.” Additional text stated: “Olay Definity eye illuminator…Reduces the look of wrinkles and dark circles for brighter, younger-looking eyes.”
Over 700 complaints, which alleged the advert to be misleading and socially irresponsible, were forwarded to the ASA following an anti-airbrushing website campaign by Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson.
According to the ASA, the complainants objected to the advert, saying it was misleading as they believed the image of Twiggy had been digitally retouched. They also believed it to be socially irresponsible as the airbrushed image could have a negative effect on people’s perception of their own body image.
Additionally, one complainant who contacted the ASA directly said the advert was misleading as it implied that the model’s appearance in the advert was achieved solely through the use of the Olay product.
Procter and Gamble said it believed that an article published in a national newspaper comparing an “off duty” paparazzi shot of Twiggy with the image in the Olay campaign may have prompted the complaints.
The company said that when the advert was questioned by the media, a review of the post-production techniques used found that the “minor retouching” around Twiggy’s eyes was “inconsistent” with P&G policies, and the decision was made to replace the advert with one in which the eye area had not been digitally retouched.
The ASA ruled the original advert seen by the complainants to be in breach of advertising standards, stating that “a combination of references to ‘younger looking eyes’ and post-production retouching of Twiggy’s image around the eye was likely to mislead.”
P&G solidly refuted the claim that the advert was socially irresponsible. This claim was also dismissed by the ASA who said the image was “unlikely to have a negative impact on perceptions of body image among the target audience.”
As the original advert had been withdrawn and subsequently replaced, the ASA ruled that no further action was required.
This is not the first time that P&G’s Olay brand has come under fire for its misleading adverts.
In March this year the ASA ruled that the comparison in P&G’s Olay Regenerist television advert between cosmetic fillers and the potential effects of the pentapeptides contained in the skin care product was misleading for consumers.
It said in a statement that the phrases used in the advert “carried a significant implication that the product was an alternative to cosmetic injections, and was capable of delivering similar "dramatic" results.” The consumer watchdog concluded that as it had not seen evidence to support this, the advert was misleading on those grounds.