ASA Adjudication on Kimberly-Clark Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Huggies Natural Fit nappies, opened with a baby crawling around a room giggling, playing with her mum and wearing only her nappy. The voiceover stated "Of all the cute little outfits she has to crawl around in, her favourite thing to wear is nothing. That's why Huggies makes new Natural Fit nappies." The ad then showed a photograph of a Pampers Active Fit nappy laid out flat alongside a Huggies Natural Fit nappy. The voiceover continued "Unlike Pampers Active Fit, Huggies Natural Fit is shaped between and around the legs." At this point, the ad highlighted the shape of the flattened Huggies nappy, which was indented around the leg area; the flat nappy became three dimensional and was transposed onto the crawling baby. As the visual returned to the chuckling baby, the voiceover said "Doesn't she look natural and carefree? It's a little thing that lets her forget about her nappy and get on with fun stuff, like playing with you. The little things are everything. Huggies Natural Fit". The ad closed with an image of a packet of the product; on-screen text stated "The little things are everything".

Issue

Procter & Gamble UK (P&G) believed the comparison was unfair and misleading, because it misrepresented the shape and fit of their product Pampers Active Fit. They said the visual demonstration of the products laid flat was artificial and misleading, because neither was a flat product in use and, when worn, Pampers Active Fit was shaped between and around the legs.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Kimberly-Clark (KC) said, in using an objective visual comparison of the two nappies pinned flat side by side, their intention was to demonstrate a consumer-relevant and verifiable product feature in a way that was easy for viewers to understand. They said viewers would recognise that a pinned out nappy was not representative of the position in which it was worn and believed, therefore, the ad was not misleading in that respect. They argued that the use of a two-dimensional demonstration was a well established visual technique in nappy advertising and cited previous P&G ads as examples when the technique had been used.

KC said the focus of the claim "Unlike Pampers Active Fit, Huggies Natural Fit is shaped between and around the legs" and visual product comparison was to demonstrate that the material was cut and designed differently around the leg area of the Huggies Natural Fit nappy. They argued that that allowed the nappy to follow the shape of a baby's leg during wear and that the ad highlighted that significant difference to the consumer. They said the shape of Huggies Natural Fit moved it closer to a comfortable, underwear-like design and that information was highly consumer-relevant.

KC acknowledged that both their Huggies Natural Fit and P&G's Pampers Active Fit nappies had shaped absorbent cores. They argued, however, that the ad showed a difference in the material (outer chassis) shaping, not the absorbent core, of the two nappies. They said the comparative claim "Unlike Pampers Active Fit, Huggies Natural Fit are shaped between and around the legs ..." appeared in the ad at the same time as the visual demonstration to ensure that viewers were not misled in any way about the product feature. They asserted that consumer testing showed that the shaping of the outer cover chassis between and around the legs was relevant to consumers; they therefore believed it was appropriate to draw the distinguishing feature of Huggies Natural Fit to the attention of consumers in their ads.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) reiterated KC's view that the ad informed viewers about one point of differentiation between the Pampers and Huggies nappies featured. They explained that, whereas the Huggies nappy had a chassis that was shaped between and around the legs, the Pampers nappy did not; they added that chassis shape was a matter of consumer relevance and for that reason KC wished to draw attention to that particular product feature. They explained that there was no way of highlighting that difference to the viewer other than by displaying both nappies pinned out flat. They said the ad did not delve into any other aspect of either nappy; it simply pointed out one difference between them. They acknowledged that, depending on the nature of the claim, a flat demonstration might not always be appropriate, but believed it was acceptable in this instance to illustrate the material difference between the shape of the two products.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the voiceover claim "Unlike Pampers Active Fit, Huggies Natural Fit is shaped between and around the legs" was accompanied by a visual demonstration of the two products laid out side by side and also noted KC's argument that the ad depicted a difference between the chassis shape of the two types of nappy.

We considered that the visual comparison demonstrated that the Huggies nappy was indented around the leg area whereas the Pampers nappy was not, which clarified the meaning of the claim "Unlike Pampers Active Fit, Huggies Natural Fit is shaped between and around the legs"; the ad did not, however, suggest that the Pampers nappy was not shaped at all: we noted the visual demonstration showed that both nappies were wider at the front and rear than they were in the middle. In addition, we understood that, at the mid point, the chassis of both nappies measured the same width. We also understood that the absorbent core area of both nappies was shaped and considered that the demonstration showed no discernible difference between the absorbent core of both nappies.

We considered that the ad merely highlighted the difference between the shaping of the nappies around the leg area. While we recognised that the visual comparison did not demonstrate the products' shape in use, we considered that viewers would understand that the demonstration of the products laid flat was not representative of the products when worn. We considered that the photograph of the two nappies laid out side by side accurately depicted what the nappies looked like when pinned out flat and therefore did not misrepresent the shape and fit of Pampers Active Fit. We concluded that the comparison was fair and the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.4.1 (Visual techniques and special effects) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)