When L’Oréal went beyond the pale

115The quality of subbing in our national newspapers these days! Imagine my interest when I read in The Times ‘L’Oréal found guilty of racism in shampoo ads’. Was this a re-run of that shameless ploy at Ogilvy & Mather all those years ago, when they  ‘glocalised’ a Ford print ad for the Polish market by whiting out all the black employees’ faces?

In fact, L’Oreal had done no such thing. What had actually happened – according to the body copy below the headline – was that a L’Oréal subsidiary, Garnier, had been found guilty in France’s highest court of fielding a white-only female team to sell its Fructis shampoo into French supermarkets. Despite the company’s feeble defence that Black, Asian and Arab women would be less able to articulate the product advantages, L’Oréal seems to believe France is a (not very latently) white supremacist society.

By way of postscript, the guilty sub was on to something – if only subliminally. Because L’Oréal does have form in manipulating its ads. Last year, it had to furiously back-pedal after being accused of tampering with Beyoncé Knowles’ skin tone to make her look paler for a Feria hair highlighting ad appearing in Elle’s US edition.

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: