化妆品广告中的明星符号研究文献翻译.doc

US watchdog bans photoshopping in cosmetics ads作者：By Sebastian Anthony on December 16, 2011 来源：http:/www.businessinsider.com/In an interesting move that should finally bring the United States fast-and-loose advertising rules and regulations into line with the UK and EU, the National Advertising Division (NAD) the advertising industrys self-regulating watchdog has moved to ban the misleading use of photoshopping and enhanced post-production in cosmetics adverts.The ban stems from a Procter & Gamble (P&G) CoverGirl ad that photoshopped a models eyelashes to exaggerate the effects of NatureLuxe Mousse Mascara. There was a footnote in the ads spiel about the photo being manipulated, but according to the director of the NAD, that simply isnt enough: “You cant use a photograph to demonstrate how a cosmetic will look after it is applied to a womans face and then in the mice type have a disclosure that says okay, not really.” The NAD ruled that the ad was unacceptable, and P&G has since discontinued it.So far, so sensible but some further words from the NAD ruling pose some tricky questions about the continued use of any post production in advertising. Citing a similar situation in the UK, where ads featuring very enhanced versions of Julia Roberts (pictured above) and Christy Turlington were banned, the NAD questions whether photoshopping is necessary when “professional styling, make-up, photography and the products inherent covering and smoothing nature” are already at use. In other words, it sounds like Photoshop is the straw that broke the camels back.Where does this leave other forms of advertising? The human face (and the multi-billion-dollar cosmetics industry) is obviously a touchy subject, but looking at the bigger picture, almost all television, film, and print advertising uses a combination of “professional styling” and post production to make something look better than it actually is. Will Burger King have to replace those impossibly juicy burgers that hang above the counter with something altogether less plastic and more real? What about those video game ads that dont feature actual gameplay and have tiny-font warnings to that effect will they be banned too? Extrapolating outwards, what about photographers who photoshop their work? Or people who photoshop themselves before placing an image on a dating website?The underlying problem, of course, is that humans are incredibly sensitive to visual stimuli and multiple trillion-dollar industries, including advertising, cosmetics, movies, and TV, all stand to gain by making their products look more appealing. There is a reason that digital manipulation and post production is so prevalent, after all and indeed, it could even be argued that non-manipulated images now look ugly to our eyes. Can you imagine if, over night, all of your favorite Hollywood stars suddenly turned ugly turned real? Perhaps, then, a ban on photoshopping in the cosmetics industry is a good starting point to slowly and safely bring us back to reality.中文翻译：美国禁止在明星化妆品广告中加入后期制作作者：安东尼萨巴斯坦来源：http:/www.businessinsider.com/这是一个有趣的举动，这应该在英国和欧洲推行一项新的规定，这个规定就是广告行业的自律性监管机构国家广告组(NAD)制定的，禁止在化妆品广告中对代言的明星进行后期的制作而对消费者选择化妆品方面产生误导。这项禁令源于宝洁公司（宝洁公司）Cover Girl照片模特儿广告夸大效应的睫毛睫毛膏NatureLuxe的效果。在广告中有一个细节我们不是很容易发现的是，这张照片被人为的修改过了。但根据国家广告组的主任说这样做仅仅是不够的：“你不能用照片说明化妆品会适用于每一个女人的脸，与此同时，在微弱的信息中披露出来说，“好吧，又不是很好。”“国家广告组（NAD）进行了裁定，这种修改过了广告是不能被消费者和大众接受的，宝洁公司必须停止这种行为。到目前为止，这个问题是很敏感的，后期继续使用任何广告宣传会进一步造成一些棘手问题。在英国，有一个类似的情况就是在提高广告展示最新版本的朱丽娅罗伯茨的广告被明令禁止。这个广告被公众质疑为在制作后期是“专业造型，化妆，摄影和产品的固有的遮盖力和平滑自然”。换句话说，这听起来像Photoshop的。这根稻草压断了化妆品广告业骆驼的脊背。这在哪儿离开其他形式的广告呢？人类的脸(和数十亿美元的化妆品业)显然是一个敏感的话题,但是观察较大的照片，几乎所有的电视、电影和印刷广告使用相结合的“专业造型”和后期制作使事情看起来比实际上要多得多。有人警告说，广告在未来禁止提高明星的代言效果好吗？化妆品广告中模特近乎完美的面庞，总能点燃美眉们购买的冲动，不过用后真能像模特一样漂亮吗？这可不一定。国际著名化妆品品牌欧莱雅在去皱护肤霜广告日前遭人投诉有误导消费者之嫌。经英国广告监管部门判定，这则广告过度使用了电脑后期修饰，夸大了产品的去皱效果，因此禁止其在杂志上刊登。有意思的是，英国广告监管部门在裁定报告中称：“虽然我们认为广告中并未不实地呈现蕾切尔薇姿的脸部光泽和皱纹，但我们认为照片的后期修改大大改善她的肤色，显得更光滑均匀。因此我们的结论是，广告所宣称的产品具有让皮肤显得更光滑、肤色更均匀的功效是夸大不实。”无独有偶，美国广告管理委员会近日也对宝洁发出类似禁令，因其在一款睫毛膏广告中使用Photoshop令模特的睫毛比真实的更细，尽管在广告中已经注明图片效果是夸张的。“改图党”在化妆品行业其实早已有之，分别只是改动的多和少而已。不要嗤之以鼻，对模特的脸孔作后期修饰，这种做法对大多数人是有潜在影响的。有心理学家指出，美丽的图案能在观者脑中留下更深的印象，这就是PS的杀伤力。有人就说了，为什么不干脆禁止这种做法。从技术的角度来说，完全禁止照片修饰很难做到，因此先行各国的做法都是，只要没有过分PS，造成误导消费者之嫌，就算合法。问题是，怎么才叫过度？因为照片修饰很难用某种数值来界定，它不像实物，可以重量、体积或其他度量衡来计算，这就无法给它一个定义了。因此，近年来控诉化妆品广告误导消费者的事情屡见不鲜，有时候管理部门会站在控方，有时又站在被控方，这实在让人无法捉摸。一些法律界人士称，我们现在对一些产品的广告词是否夸大疗效有作出规定和约束，按照广告法的规定，凡利用广告对商品或者服务作虚假宣传的，由广告监督管理机关责令广告主停止发布，并处以相应罚款。不过，对于代言人形象过度修饰等问题是否属于虚假宣传，法律界尚无定论。面对近年来层出不穷的化妆品公共事件，药监局的说法是，要建立健全化妆品安全事故查处、跟踪督查和责任追究制度。这些举动是否表明，在化妆品这一过去大家并不怎么重视的、监管纷杂的领域内将构筑新的监管格局。但在现有的法律规定下，对化妆品虚假宣传的监管，仍旧是一大难题。潜在的问题是人类在美丽方面是很敏感的，对视觉的刺激以及投入亿万美元的行业，包括广告、化妆品、电影、电视、全体采用后期特效制作为自己使他们的产品看起来更有吸引力。有一个原因是数字化的操作和后期制作是如此普遍，毕竟，在事实上,它甚至可以被认为没有被美化过的图像现在看起来丑到我们的眼睛。你能想象如果一夜,所有你喜欢的好莱坞明星突然变得难看了。这是真的吗？那么，也许一项禁令。禁止在化妆品行业制作是一个好的开始慢慢地和安全带给我们回到现实中来。