You know, I used to adore Elizabeth Arden until the company discontinued my favourite scent, and now they’re pulling this bullshit with Britney Spears latest advert. So officially, I will never again purchase any of their perfumes, sprays, lotions, bottled pee, or whatever novelties they’re selling nowadays.
Following rumours that the advert in question features a body double for Britney Spears, Elizabeth Arden’s publicity machine has emailed out a damage-control message that MacStansbury has forwarded to us (in an attempt to keep the McConaughey postings at a manageable level):
Please find the attached national advertisement for Britney Spear’s [sic] new fragrance, Britney Spears Believe which will be out on counters in October. Pre-order is available on http://britneyspearsbelieve.com/
Elizabeth Arden’s statement:
“We recently shot Britney Spears for the print campaign for her new fragrance Britney Spears Believe, in Santa Monica. It is true that Britney did leave the set; however, she returned after a brief time. Cayli was the wardrobe assistant on the shoot. We used her as a stand in so that we could set up the lighting while Britney was off the set. When Britney returned, we shot the national print ad with her. The only person in the national print ad for Britney’s Believe fragrance is Britney Spears.”
As “proof,” the company attached a 1.2 MB version of the advert, thereby betraying the company’s blind faith in our stupidity. We ran a few photoshop filters on the advert itself, which caused Britney’s birthmarks to become much more visible. These birthmarks were then compared to a much older image of Brit in which the birthmarks were not airbrushed into oblivion. Click on the below image for a closer view of the comparison:
Hot damn, I guess Elizabeth Arden isn’t lying about Britney Spears being the only person present in the new perfume advert. However, it seems that Elizabeth Arden believes in revealing only the nonincriminating details. Sure, the chick in the advert really is Britney Spears, but it certainly is not the present-day incarnation of the white trash princess. Not by about five years or so.
4 comments
Wait, what?
I believe you and all, I just don’t get what the photograph proves? Is there a secret time/stamp on it somewhere they missed that proves its five years old? Or birthmarks get rings like trees? Yes, the belly in that pic looks like the belly in the old pic, and not like Britz current gut, if that’s what you mean, but where do the birthmarks come in?
I’m missing something here.
docweasel - The question was whether the body in the ad was even Britney Spears to begin with or if it was a body double. There were rumors that she left that shoot before they had good pictures of more than just her head.
Oh. Ok, so the photo comparison proves it IS indeed I mean Britney , but also points up the fact that its not her current gut.
Now I got it, thank you for the clarification. I barely slept last night.
Of course I did a lot of crack, so there’s that.
The hands in the E.A. ad are not Britney’s. She has small stumpy fingers, check the accompanying pic. fake.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://agentbedhead.com/index.php/archive/the-telltale-birthmarks-of-britney-spears/trackback/