L'Oreal admits "faking it" in their ad. What impact will it have on all brands?

L'Oreal have been receiving a lot of negative publicity and comment after being "rapped over the knuckles" by the UK Advertising Standards Authority for ads featuring the actress/ spokesperson Penelope Cruz for "L'Oreal Paris Telescopic mascara". The ad claimed to make your lashes HUGE, but in the ad the effect was apparently boosted by the actress wearing false eyelashes.

To read the ASA ruling: click here

This time round the fact that the ad was "faking it" and showing an exaggerated claim seems to have struck a chord with the media more than the almost constant string of other rulings on beauty claims over the last year or so. We are yet to see and hear the effect on the consumer attitudes and purchases. I, however, suspect that the extra publicity for L'Oreal Paris Telescopic Mascara may actually drive sales rather than harm them. The brand and product has been the subject of acres of press coverage, giving it added brand awareness for what consumers do think at the end of the day is a good brand with good products. The publicity could boost trial and purchases.

We have seen that the adage the "all publicity is good publicity" does work in the case of building brand awareness. We saw in the recently published Superbrands list of Top 10 brands (2007) chosen by consumers that 3 of them had been the subject of a lot of publicity and comment from less than desirable activities (BA for stoppages and mountains of lost luggage; Cadbury for Salmonella and BP for cavalier attitude to maintenance leading to safety and environmental disasters). And yet they popped up in the Top 10 brands making me wonder at least if the brand awareness effect had helped as, although these brands had done some poor things, consumers overall rated them fine as brands.

Perhaps in the case of this transgression by L'Oreal, the media have reacted more negatively for this deception than over other rulings on advertising as it comes on the back of a string of media led discretions in the UK. Perhaps the media generally is relieved, and a bit happy, that they can report on another industry seemingly not playing as honestly as it could. In the UK there has been a string of deceptions exposed across many of the TV channels (BBC, Channel 4, ITV, Channel 5) which range from huge rip-offs from premium rate voting and competition lines to program makers stretching the truth and faking scenes and passing them off as real.

However, no matter the reason, I do think we are about to see a real and important shift happening with consumer attitudes and expectations. Many trusted names in the media and now brands are being exposed as playing faster and looser with reality, claims and performance and consumers will be less trusting and more demanding. They will not blindly accept what you are saying, brands will need to make sure that they are really doing what they say and work on building a more trusting relationship with their consumers.

I was personally mortified when L'Oreal partly justified the use of fake lashes by saying in their statement: ""It is common industry practice to make use of some artificial lashes in order to ensure a consistent lash line under filming or shooting conditions,

I think when we look back and reflect on this period, we will remember that people running brands (be it the BBC, ITV, L'Oreal or whatever) had their knuckles wrapped and had some new rules put in place, but we will see it as an important catalyst for changing the nature of relationships and openness with consumers. A lot of the problems we see in both the media and the claims made by brands has come from the "others are doing it" mindset and trying to one-up the competition instead of focusing on doing right by your audience and your consumer. Brands that learn from this and focus more on this will be the winners from this more sordid type of practice being exposed.

What do you think? Leave your comments?