1
00:00:12,757 --> 00:00:16,222
[MUSIC]. 
Let's start and think about advertising,

2
00:00:16,222 --> 00:00:22,752
and the first image is one for an 
anti-wrinkling cream.

3
00:00:22,752 --> 00:00:28,893
This is an advert that was put out in 
Britain and, featured Rachel Weiss, the

4
00:00:28,893 --> 00:00:36,380
British actress. 
Its suggested that the image that was

5
00:00:36,380 --> 00:00:44,590
used, in this particular instance was 
unrepresentative of the effects that the

6
00:00:44,590 --> 00:00:48,420
wrinkle cream had. 
Now, this is advertising.

7
00:00:48,420 --> 00:00:54,322
Let's just be practical about this. 
yes it contravenes some standards.

8
00:00:54,322 --> 00:00:57,450
they have selected a particularly 
photogenic image.

9
00:00:57,450 --> 00:01:02,900
The fact they've had to doctor it 
slightly, does suggest that they're over

10
00:01:02,900 --> 00:01:06,330
exaggerating the potential effects of the 
product.

11
00:01:06,330 --> 00:01:11,570
But no one is going to be too shocked to 
learn that this periodically happens, and

12
00:01:11,570 --> 00:01:14,700
gets picked up by the appropriate 
authorities.

13
00:01:14,700 --> 00:01:19,030
When it come to advertising there's also 
what is acceptable, what's not acceptable

14
00:01:19,030 --> 00:01:24,205
as times change. 
there is fairly heavy regulation in the

15
00:01:24,205 --> 00:01:30,670
21st century about tobacco advertising. 
But when you have an instance of an

16
00:01:30,670 --> 00:01:36,509
advertising company in America who is 
licensed the use of the Abbey Road cover

17
00:01:36,509 --> 00:01:40,880
by the Beatles. 
Airbrushing out to the cigarette held by

18
00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:44,550
Paul McCartney as they cross the zebra 
crossing.

19
00:01:44,550 --> 00:01:49,550
You get an idea of how the concerns of 
society have changed.

20
00:01:49,550 --> 00:01:53,484
That something that was a common place in 
the late 60s in the first decade of the

21
00:01:53,484 --> 00:01:58,770
Twenty-first Century, can't be viewed 
without some alteration.

22
00:01:58,770 --> 00:02:03,900
Now if we're worrying about photographs 
of cigarette smoking, in the modern age.

23
00:02:03,900 --> 00:02:08,120
Here is an instance which four and six 
have from 2005.

24
00:02:08,120 --> 00:02:17,000
It seems very innocuous Clemet Herd the 
illustrator of a revised edition of the

25
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:24,000
children's classic book Good Night Moon. 
Had in the previous couple of decades,

26
00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:28,240
been pictured on the back cover holding a 
cigarette.

27
00:02:28,240 --> 00:02:32,580
When it came to the new edition, the 
publishers felt it was appropriate to

28
00:02:32,580 --> 00:02:37,555
have the cigarette removed, and with the 
reluctant agreement of Mr.

29
00:02:37,555 --> 00:02:42,118
Herd's family, that was done. 
So, for something that was unacceptable

30
00:02:42,118 --> 00:02:47,510
for two what's unacceptable now, had been 
let passed for two decades.

31
00:02:47,510 --> 00:02:52,266
Times changed. 
So did the requirement of the airbrushing

32
00:02:52,266 --> 00:02:55,920
of the photograph. 
When it comes to advertising, you

33
00:02:55,920 --> 00:03:00,200
shouldn't necessarily be surprised that 
cigarettes are in or out of the

34
00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:05,010
photograph of the time. 
Or that a photograph may have been

35
00:03:05,010 --> 00:03:10,385
altered to enhance the effects of the, 
quote, wrinkle cream, unquotes on the

36
00:03:10,385 --> 00:03:14,200
image. 
But when it comes to the cover of Time,

37
00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:16,548
Time magazine, you're expecting something 
a little bit different.

38
00:03:16,548 --> 00:03:24,542
And in 2007 Time magazine ran an article, 
How The Right Went Wrong.

39
00:03:24,542 --> 00:03:28,230
And it displays fairly clearly Ronald 
Reagan but, digitally added was a tear

40
00:03:28,230 --> 00:03:42,110
across his right cheek. 
As if Reagan was lamenting after the

41
00:03:42,110 --> 00:03:45,710
event, How The Right Went Wrong, so to 
speak.

42
00:03:45,710 --> 00:03:51,320
Now, Time argued that, they'd made it 
clear at one point or other that this was

43
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:55,350
a montage. 
But having a photograph of Ronald Reagan,

44
00:03:55,350 --> 00:03:58,930
as opposed to a photograph of Ronald 
Reagan with a tear given the head, the

45
00:03:58,930 --> 00:04:03,120
headline to the article, does change the 
way that you are going to interpret it.

46
00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:08,910
So, again, this is a piece of advertising 
which is augmented a photograph and

47
00:04:08,910 --> 00:04:12,800
augmented a photograph for the effect of 
promoting sales.

48
00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:17,430
Now when it comes to magazine covers 
there seems to be a very high proportion

49
00:04:17,430 --> 00:04:21,470
of them especially if they're appealing 
to men with young women on them.

50
00:04:21,470 --> 00:04:25,166
It could be women of any age, but, you 
know, lets be practical about this.

51
00:04:25,166 --> 00:04:33,110
In 2003 GQ magazine perpetrated something 
of a controversy.

52
00:04:33,110 --> 00:04:40,310
they had Kate Winslet on their cover. 
Kate Winslet one of the finest actresses

53
00:04:40,310 --> 00:04:47,260
of her generation was digitally altered 
to narrow her hips.

54
00:04:47,260 --> 00:04:53,490
To effectively elongate her, for what was 
perceived to be the image requirements of

55
00:04:53,490 --> 00:04:58,950
the clientele. 
so there we have someone who is known for

56
00:04:58,950 --> 00:05:05,190
her abilities, her integrity as an 
actress, yes, her looks, she's a

57
00:05:05,190 --> 00:05:10,245
Hollywood star as much as anything else. 
But the need to change it, to sell more

58
00:05:10,245 --> 00:05:14,760
magazines? 
As opposed to representing her as she is.

59
00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:19,230
That does seem taking things a little bit 
far, and did cause a controversy at the time. [BLANK_AUDIO]