Are All Adverts Misleading?

This week the ACA ruled that L’Oreal’s advert featuring Cheryl Cole was not ‘misleading,’ as fans have previously argued, because the commercial mentioned her hair’s “styled with some natural extensions.”

Now, Cheryl pays over £4000 a year for her hair to look that amazing, according to the Daily Mail. So does no one find it morally disturbing that a company can advertise a finished result that requires more than what’s in the bottle? Or should we simply accept that most adverts are economical with the truth.

Take those mascara commercials for instance, that obviously use models with fake eyelashes, and the skin product promos that feature botox pumped women who couldn’t change their expression even if they tried.

Cheryl is a role model for thousands of girls and women, who are sure to go and buy L’Oreal’s shampoo. So will each bottle be sold with the disclaimer, “to get hair like Cheryl you might need a bottomless credit card limit or a small fortune?” I don’t think so.

My advice is to be open minded before you part with your money. L’Oreal’s product is actually very good. We passed it round our girlfriends for them to try out and they all thought it left their hair beautifully soft and feeling very healthy.

So, we all know Cheryl looks amazing and is a lovely woman… but ask yourself why else should I buy this product? That shouldn’t be the only reason.

Below is the add if you didn’t catch it on television. Be warned though, blink and you’ll miss the disclaimer…