ASA Adjudication on Smart Shop TV Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for the Epil-Stop and Spray hair removal product, featured a number of demonstrations in which hair was shown to be removed instantly. The voiceover said " ... you simply spray it on and wipe away the hair ... Epil-Stop's safe spray feels like a cool water mist on your skin and all you do is just wipe away the hair with a regular cloth. Your skin will feel cool, refreshed and delightfully soft. Now a lot of products say they're pain free but what's not painful about ripping your hair out ... now what would you rather do? Painfully rip and pull or gently spray and wipe away? ... The secret is a new eight in one lotion that contains an effective hair remover, a gentle exfoliator, vitamins E and C, aloe vera, enriched antioxidants and now cucumber and melon extract to soothe, refresh and deeply moisturise leaving your skin hydrated, softer and hair free. That makes new Epil-Stop and Spray eight times better ... ".

Issue

The complainant challenged:

1. whether the ad exaggerated the efficacy of the product, and especially whether the ad gave an accurate impression of its performance; and

2. whether the product was safe to use.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Smart Shop TV (Smart Shop) sent the ASA two reports that gave details of studies that had been commissioned to evaluate the irritation potential and efficacy of a hair removal product in men and women.

Assessment

The ASA noted the studies submitted by Smart Shop related to a different, although similarly named, product to the one advertised. We asked Smart Shop to send studies that related to the Epil-Stop and Spray product but they did not do so.

1. Upheld

We noted the product tested in both studies was a pre-moistened cloth towelette, not a spray, that applied a depilatory product to the skin; the product was left on the skin for ten minutes. We understood that the product was then removed using a sensitive cleansing towelette and the test area was rinsed with cool water.

We considered that the studies were insufficient evidence to substantiate the impression, given by the numerous demonstrations in the ad, that the Epil-Stop and Spray product could be sprayed onto hair and instantly wiped off with a dry towel or flannel, immediately removing all hair from the test area. Furthermore, given that the studies did not relate to the product advertised, we considered that we had not seen evidence to show that the spray product was at all effective in removing hair. We also noted the product was tested on 35 men and 35 women only.

We were not persuaded that the product worked in the way demonstrated in the ad and therefore concluded that it exaggerated the efficacy of the product and gave a misleading impression of its performance.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Broadcast (TV) Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2 (Implications) and 5.4.1 (Visual techniques and special effects).

2. Upheld

We understood from the studies that, after the removal of hair, the test areas - women's upper lips, jawlines/cheeks, chins and bikini lines and men's chests, backs and forearms - were graded for irritation immediately, 10 minutes and 24 hours later. We noted the report had concluded that, although some subjects experienced irritation, any irritation was minimal in intensity and typical of that expected from this type of product.

Given that the studies did not relate to the spray product advertised, we concluded that they did not substantiate that the product was safe to use.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Broadcast (TV) Advertising Standards Code rule 6.7 (Health and safety).

Action

We reminded Smart Shop of the importance of holding robust substantiation that related to the product advertised and told them not to broadcast the ad again.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)