I've used all sorts of pricey salon products and when I worked on TV sets the ladies would do my hair for free! But the best Shampoo/Conditioner ever for my hair type is Pantene Pro-V Sheer Volume 2 in 1. It makes my hair pure silk.
@Jetgirly: It's not wax, but silicone, which can build up and eventualy make hair brittle. You can wash silicones out if you match the right shampoo to them (not all are water soluble) but those shampoos tend to be pretty harsh and drying.
@Dancingfrog: Most conditioners of all brands have silicone in them (they're the ingredients which end in -cone or -oxane). It's not so great when shampoos have them too.
Silicones work for some but not others, but if you want to investigate there's a VAST amount of stuff out there in haircare communities and on specialist sites.
Do we really think the models and actresses are using the $3.99 shit they're advertising, ever? they're using some bottled bull semen from france distilled with german beer piss in gold bottles and rinsed with virgin cow milk and wrapped weekly with squirrel placenta. Plz, like this Goodwin girl has ever seen a bottle of L'Oreal.
Um, if I had a daughter I think my focus would not be on making sure she knows this particular ad is false advertising, but on making sure she knows how pretty much all such ads are fundamentally false advertising. I'm sorry, but no amount of a particular product is going to make you look like Cheryl Cole/Beyonce/Sarah Jessica Parker unless you happen to already, extensions or no extensions. In fact, the presence of the extensions might even make it more realistic to aspire to that look, as you can at least buy the extensions if you're willing to throw down enough money. This is symptomatic of a bigger problem, and I don't think making the warning that Cheryl Cole has extensions more noticeable is going to fix that problem.
Honestly, unless it's a product for fullness of volume the extensions aren't a big deal. If they are human hair ones then they require the same care as the stuff growing out of your scalp naturally. The product is not going to magically work better because of extensions, that's the Photoshop.
if one really believes (sorry Vivelafat says!) that any make-up, hair or skin product commercial is showing the real deal, well, then one is much deluded.
that said, I DO think ALL commercials such as these SHOULD come with a disclaimer.
and, as a sidenote, most commercially made products for your hair are, ironically, terrible for your hair, despite what you are told. but I shall
spare that diatribe.
@Scout: If you're buying anything from the drugstore, forget the pomegrant natural oils on the front of the lable and just get something that doesn't list alcohol in the top three ingredients (Suave).
as much as i think most people now understand that celebrities and models are heavily styled, made up and photoshop-ed, i still don't believe we realize the full extent to which things are manipulated. while i figure i wouldn't get big bouncy hair model hair just from a shampoo, i wouldn't automatically think that the model was wearing extensions or a weave or a wig or that the shiny in the hair was digitally added in post - i would probably just think she had a great hair stylist that day and that if i used the right products and had the right people i could get there (or at least close), too.
it kind of reminds me of the kelly clarkson self cover controversy from a month ago or so. i saw a picture of her at the AMAs last night and it is shocking how different she looks in person than in her promo shots for her albums or on the cover of magazines. she's an adorable girl regardless, but the disparity between the real life and the glossy versions of people and is getting bigger to an extent that most of us can't readily comprehend when viewing an image.
@Mrs. Stephen Fry: Christmas is coming soon, if we're good we may see her disappear forever, ideally swallowed up by her L'Oreal enhanced hair extensions.
Putting either half of Greedy and Tweedy on something is guaranteed to make me shop for another brand.
this is ridiculous. as if anyone can't tell by looking at that pic she is wearing extensions. i mean, i can. i think cheryl, who is truly beautiful in my opinion, always wears extensions.
that's not really my point. i don't think it's false advertising to use hair extensions in hair advertising. i think it's completely comical that people think so. i don't get it. modeling and hair styling, makeup, lighting, photography = art. they are creating an illusion to sell a product. why is anyone shocked they enhanced her hair? i guess as someone who has worked on camera in hollywood, i don't really think of it as a con. i guess i expect people to be more media literate, and most aren't. you would be very surprised to know some of the major celebrities who wear wigs ALL THE TIME, and are in fact known for their hair. and do hair advertisements. it's just how it is. of course some people have naturally thick hair, long hair, healthy hair. i think cheryl probably does, but i happen to have read about the extensions her stylists use when she's on x factor, so i would assume she is wearing them in this image, and it looks like it to me. it doesn't make it a crime to create an image using all the art of illusion available in hollywood to create the most glossy image they can, to sell a product. isn't that the point?
I am a little appalled by all of the commenters defending this commercial by saying "Of course it's not real, does anyone actually think it is?" Well actually, yes, call me insane, but I expect a product to do what it tells me it will do. And if we let hair products off the hook and allow them to use a model with extensions, than why do we require diet pills to disclose that results are atypical? Why do we complain about photoshopping?
These commercials are part of a bigger problem. Our rational mind might understand that extensions are used but these commercials just add to an unrealistic beauty expectation.
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: But this isn't about making advertisers use the real results of their product's use in the ads, it's just about having a disclaimer before presenting those unrealistic results. Which seems pointless, because disclaimers for prescriptions and breakfast cereal and whatever haven't stopped those industries from making shit up all over the place. And because people can know full well that something is fake and still feel pressured to fulfill those standards. I think most of them already do, actually, and it doesn't change much.
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: Thank you for saying this. People! They're calling out a beauty advertiser on false fricking claims! That's a GOOD thing. That means women are being taken seriously as consumers. Goodness sake.
Does anyone think supermodels use $7 L'Oreal on their hair? Extensions or none, the hair you see in any commercial is not regularly shampooed with bargain products.
the salon i work at now carries the color line that is responsible for Sarah Jessica Parker's hair color. apparently Garnier (who uses her as a spokesperson) pays a bunch of money to the professional product company in order to say her hair color is theirs. every beauty ad on TV is essentially fake.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Silicones work for some but not others, but if you want to investigate there's a VAST amount of stuff out there in haircare communities and on specialist sites.
Here are some "cone-free" conditioners:
[archive.longhaircommunity.com]
And here are some cosmetic chemists on silicone:
[thebeautybrains.com]
[thebeautybrains.com]
Oh, and on ceteryl alcohol, which isn't bad for your hair, *is* sort of waxy, and is in most conditioners:
[www.thebeautybrains.com]
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
if one really believes (sorry Vivelafat says!) that any make-up, hair or skin product commercial is showing the real deal, well, then one is much deluded.
that said, I DO think ALL commercials such as these SHOULD come with a disclaimer.
and, as a sidenote, most commercially made products for your hair are, ironically, terrible for your hair, despite what you are told. but I shall
spare that diatribe.
11/23/09
11/23/09
it kind of reminds me of the kelly clarkson self cover controversy from a month ago or so. i saw a picture of her at the AMAs last night and it is shocking how different she looks in person than in her promo shots for her albums or on the cover of magazines. she's an adorable girl regardless, but the disparity between the real life and the glossy versions of people and is getting bigger to an extent that most of us can't readily comprehend when viewing an image.
11/23/09
11/23/09
Putting either half of Greedy and Tweedy on something is guaranteed to make me shop for another brand.
11/23/09
11/23/09
She's just so . . . vacuous.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
11/23/09
These commercials are part of a bigger problem. Our rational mind might understand that extensions are used but these commercials just add to an unrealistic beauty expectation.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09