There is a whole series of these commercials, all with the exact same pattern: some person claims to be the make-up artist on some film and proceeds with explaining that 'normal' make-up is deficient in one way or antoher, obviously unlike the particular product from Max Factor.
What's so annoying about this? Well, for one thing, Protor and Gamble (the owners of the Max Factor brand) are cheap bastards, because they let the same commercial run for well longer than the typical release cycle of a big Hollywood production, even when taking the global staggered releases into account. So, the commercials more often than not go like this:
Hi, I am [somebody you honestly never ever heard of], make-up artist on [movie you vaguely recall from the beginning of the Summer season, a year or maybe two ago]. Normal make-up [has some obvious defect that must make about 95% of the user community look like an idiot]. New [some product that you have seen advertised and on shelves for positively ages, so it is hardly new] does not have this defect.
Besides the obvious use of commercials that have long outlived their media tie-in context, there is a certain amount of stupidity hidden in the decades old tagline 'make-up of make-up artists': actors in movie productions would look positively weird under normal lighting conditions. Also, the environmental conditions they work in are nothing like what you (as the potential customer) you would normally use the make-up in. It follows that the products used are hardly comparable, which makes the whole idea of using 'professional' products similar to putting a Formula One engine in your Ford Mondeo: Will Just Not Work in Real Life.