ASA Upholds Complaints Against Chanel And Colgate
Chanel is old enough to know better and Colgate needs to brush up after the Advertising Standards Association (ASA) upheld complaints against both companies.
The ASA received objections to a national press advertisement for a Chanel skin care product called “Precision Age Delay”, which claimed to “delay time” and “visibly rejuvenate the skin.”
Complainants challenged whether Chanel could substantiate claims made in the ad that the product was: “A new high performance serum to combat the first signs of ageing”, that it “stimulates cell vitality” and “re-educates the skin to behave like young skin.”
The ASA also challenged whether the product could actually “delay time,” “correct and rejuvenate the skin” and provide “a real youth boost.”
Chanel sent copies of two clinical trials in support of the claims, but after taking expert advice the ASA concluded that these could not substantiate “the claimed efficiency of the product.” The authority said that the advertisement had breached advertising codes and told the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice Team before advertising the product again.
The ASA also received complaints from Gillette Management against two adverts for the Colgate Actibrush.
The first ad was headlined: “Superior cleaning compared to an ordinary tooth brush.” The advertisers were challenged by Gillette prove these claims.
The advertisers sent a report of a clinical trial that they believed showed the Actibrush removed more plaque than their standard toothbrush but conceded that the study had not been designed to show superiority over all toothbrushes. They also sent a copy of recent research showing that 85% of professionals believed that the Actibrush cleaned better than a manual toothbrush. This they said that this was evidence that: “An electric tooth brush provided a more effective clean than a manual toothbrush.”
After taking expert advice the ASA concluded that this was the case and decided not to uphold complaints.
The second ad was headlined: “Get ready for action” and the complainants challenged claims that the Actibrush removes “significantly more plaque than an ordinary toothbrush”, that it “brings professional-standard oral care to your bathroom” and that it “cleans every surface of every tooth thoroughly.”
In response Colgate said they had not suggested that: “A powered toothbrush could replicate the cleaning effects used by dentists,” but that: “Professionals believed a powered toothbrush gave a professional quality clean.” They did however agree not to show the ad again.
The ASA concluded that the claim made by the advertisers did imply that the product enabled users to achieve a clean similar to that given by a dentist and that the claim was “invalid” because it could not to backed up by evidence. They upheld the complaint and welcomed the advertiser’s assurance that the claim would not be made again. They concluded, however, that readers would understand claims that the Actibrush: “Cleans every surface of the tooth thoroughly,” to mean all exposed areas of the tooth and not those below the gumline and did not uphold the complaint on this aspect of the advertising.
ASA: 020 7580 5555 www.asa.org.uk
Subscribers can access ten years of media news and analysis in the Archive