Cheryl Cole – was it worth it?

Posted By

cheryl_cole_loreal_fall09The controversy over Cheryl Cole’s pairing with L’Oreal is heating up faster than a curling iron, as many debate whether the adverts are misleading.

To date the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has rejected 13 complaints because the disclaimer about Cole’s extensions was “clear and legible”. A pretty small number in the grand scheme of things, but is this just the tip of the iceberg?

The disclaimer ‘styled with some natural hair extensions’ flashes for a mere two seconds of the TV commercial’s 30 second duration. In advertisements, the hair extensions are mentioned in print only 2mm high. Recent revelations from her hairdresser, Julien Guyonnet, that he in fact uses artificial fibre extensions and not natural ones, will certainly only serve to further infuriate (and no doubt cost Guyonnet a very high-profile client).

You would have thought that L’Oreal would have seen this coming and avoided it like the plague. The company landed in hot water back in 2007, when it was revealed that Penelope Cruz’s magnificent eyelashes were the result of the false ones she was wearing, as apposed to L’Oreal’s Telescopic mascara – surely this is exactly the same but on a much grander level.

Whilst the ASA may not have a problem with the adverts (yet), you can see how many a mother would. Whilst women in their twenties are a little savvier to these types of things, young girls are certainly not and therein lies the problem: Cheryl is an icon to young, impressionable girls.

With neither L’Oreal nor Cole’s spokespeople willing to confirm or deny whether the extensions Cheryl wears in the adverts are made from real or fake hair, things are sounding more dubious by the minute. It’s only a matter of time before more and more mothers balk at being asked to fork out for a shampoo that has nothing to do with Cheryl Cole’s luscious locks.

So the question is: L’Oreal, was it worth it?