ASA Adjudication on Kimberly-Clark Ltd

Ad

A leaflet, for paper hand towels, compared the benefits of paper towels with jet air dryers and warm air dryers. The ad stated “LINEN TOWELS. Considered unhygienic to use.” The small print stated “All data from University of Westminster Study Feb 2009 and User Preference Study Intermetra June 2008.”

Issue

The European Textile Services Association (ESTA) challenged whether the claim "considered unhygienic to use" was misleading because it implied cotton performed worse than other drying methods, whereas they understood that the hygiene study referenced in the ad did not contain an analysis of cotton.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Kimberly-Clark said their campaign sought to highlight the hygienic benefits of drying hands with paper hand towels over alternative hand drying methods. Kimberly-Clark said that two studies had formed the basis of their claims: the University of Westminster study underpinned claims relating to bacteria levels, whilst subjective claims about consumer preference were supported by a consumer perception study. Kimberly-Clark explained that the claim "unhygienic to use" was based on a user preference survey, conducted on 2000 people, rather than the University of Westminster Study in 2009 as the complainants alleged. They said that the preference study showed that 79 percent of participants found textile rolls to be the least hygienic option in comparison to hot air dryers and paper hand towels. Kimberly-Clark said they had been diligent in their advertising to ensure it was accurate and had referenced the relevant studies in the ad.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that ESTA believed the claim "considered unhygienic to use" was based upon the findings in the University of Westminster study, which was not the case. We noted that the ad contained a combination of claims, some of which included statistics relating to bacteria levels, and considered that the presentation of the ad was ambiguous in terms of the basis for each claim. We considered that it was likely readers would believe the claim "considered unhygienic to use", in the context of its position in the ad and the surrounding claims, to be based on evidence that directly compared the performance of paper towels, jet air dryers, warm air dryers and linen towels in terms of bacteria levels on the hands after drying.

We noted Kimberley-Clarks argument that the claim relating to linen towels was based on a User Preference Study that was referenced in the ad; they believed the ad did not suggest that paper towels, jet air dryers, warm air dryers and linen towels were all included in the University of Westminster study. However, we considered that the presentation of the ad did not make sufficiently clear that the basis for the claim "Considered unhygienic to use" in relation to linen towels was derived from a different source from the accompanying claims about bacteria levels in relation to other drying methods. We concluded that the comparison was therefore misleading.

We further noted the consumer preference survey on which Kimberly-Clark said the claim about linen towels was based asked participants which method of hand drying (hot air dryers, paper hand towels and pull down textile rolls) they considered to be most hygienic; we noted that respondents had not rated linen towels as "unhygienic", but had rather reported which form of hand drying they considered to be the most hygienic, and in response to that question, linen towels were rated the lowest. We noted that respondents were not asked whether they considered linen towels to be unhygienic per se. We concluded that, because the ad made comparative claims without being sufficiently clear about the means of substantiating those claims, and because it made claims about linen towels that were extrapolated from the findings of the preference survey in a way that was likely to mislead, the claim "Considered unhygienic to use" beneath the image and heading "LINEN TOWELS" breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and or their products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)