Quote:
Originally Posted by eadweard  So, we are accepting as fact that Sarah didn't actually pose nude for the ads? Then, if so, Sarah has perpetrated a fraud and has also engaged in false advertising. Sorry, if true, there is no excuse for her actions. Personally, from her comments on various talk shows we have seen lately, I think she did pose sans clothes. |
Are you bloody joking me right now? I've got to laugh out loud at something like this, when someone suggests a person is committing fraud when there's nothing really fraudulent in the advertising.
The skin is amazing campaign isn't about nudity, it's about skin, being amazing. From what I can see Sarah has amazing skin (even without the airbrushing) so really there IS no false advertising. If she had terrible skin then I would see why someone would accuse her and Vaseline of false advertising. She's selling a product for Vaseline and selling the brand based on the idea that their product helps her skin, on the idea that she takes care of her skin. If the advert had been about her nakedness as opposed to the niceness of her skin then yes, it probably would be false advertising. The advert isn't about that however so I'm not certain where you're coming from.
I suppose Sarah's committing fraud every time a magazine airbrushes or photoshops her photos then.