Advertising cosmetics: to what extent should extensions/computers be used to enhance a model's looks?

Most cosmetic ads on TV these days (esp. L'Oreal) use hair extensions on their models when advertising shampoo and conditioner, fake eyelashes when advertising mascara and/or enhancing both with computer graphics. There is usually an almost invisible notice flashed up in the bottom left hand corner for a few seconds telling us that's what they're doing, but who thinks they are misleading consumers?





We know that the models are very beautiful but if even they have to be enhanced, what hope is there of the product making the rest of us look any better? If Linda Evangelista needs computer trickery to make her eyelashes look better, or Claudia Schiffer needs hair extensions before being deemed fit to advertise shampoo I may as well seal myself up in a dark room so nobody need look upon my hideousness!





To what extent is it false advertising and should it be allowed?Advertising cosmetics: to what extent should extensions/computers be used to enhance a model's looks?
It does appear to be less than honest, but as long as the disclaimer is quickly flashed during the ad, it's likely to be considered legitimate. That's my personal opinion, but I realize how very frustrating this slight-of-hand trickery can be.





Shamefully, I admit to falling for similar ploys on TV shopping networks. While the products appear to be worthwhile when used as shown, somehow they just don't work the same for me after they arrive at my home. Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I've finally learned the old adage is true: If it looks (or sounds) too good to be true, it probably is.





To answer your question, false advertising is just that and should not be permitted at all! Aren't there policies governing this dishonest practice, and where are the overseers who allow these things to happen on their watch?

mr skin