ASA Adjudication on Alberto-Culver Company (UK) Ltd

Ad

a. A press ad was headed "10x stronger after just one use* Naturally". The body copy stated "With fewer sulphates and silicone free conditioning, new TRESemme Naturals won't dry out or weigh down your hair. With natural extracts of avocado, sweet orange and aloe vera, it helps to hydrate and smooth. Giving you hair that's 10X stronger after only one use. Get salon performance naturally, at a price that feels right". Text at the bottom of the ad stated "*TRESemme Naturals Shampoo and Conditioner versus non conditioning shampoo".
b. A TV ad featured a male hairdresser with a female customer and the voice-over stated "My clients want salon quality and natural ingredients in products that work. TRESemme Naturals with fewer sulphates, silicon free conditioning and natural extracts. For smoother looking hair that's ten times stronger after one use. Get salon quality the natural way, without the salon price. New natural from tresemme. Professional. Affordable". On-screen text stated "*Strength measured against resistance to brushing. TRESemme NATURALS Shampoo and Conditioners vs non conditioning shampoos".

Issue

Three complainants, one a hairdresser of 33 years, challenged whether the claim "Giving you hair that's 10X stronger after only one use" was misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

Alberto-Culver Company (UK) Ltd (Alberto-Culver) stated it was well known that the use of shampoos and conditioners resulted in smoother hair fibres which reduced the resistance to brushing and combing and as a result, lowered hair breakage when brushing or combing. They stated that "stronger" hair would be understood by consumers as hair which was less prone to breakage when brushing They stated that the accepted industry standard for evaluating hair damage induced by wet and dry combing was the "repeated combing test" which was also known as "flogging". They provided a copy of a trial which used the "flogging" method which showed a reduction in hair breakage which they believed showed an increase in hair strength. They stated that between 60% and 70% of Tresemme users coloured or highlighted their hair in some way and that, as the third highest selling hair care product, they believed their customers' profile was therefore fairly representative of the national profile. They stated that the trial tested hair that had been bleached in order to replicate the type of damage caused to hair by heat styling and colouring and that it was therefore a good base against which to measure the likely results on the average consumers hair.

Clearcast said they believed that most consumers would perceive hair strength, or lack of it, based on whether or not the hair breaks during brushing and that a ten times reduction in breakage would indicate, and could be described as, a ten times increase in strength. They believed the report supplied by Alberto-Culver demonstrated that hair treated with the product was representative of their customers hair profile and that it showed a ten times reduction in breakage.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the trial report supplied by Alberto-Culver used the flogging technique to measure resistance against breaking and noted their comments that it was used by the industry to measure hair breakage. We accepted that this method could used to examine hair strength because we considered that resistance to breakage through brushing and combing to be a consumer relevant method of establishing hair strength. However we considered that, without further qualification, consumers would be likely to infer from the claim "10X stronger" that the Tresemme shampoo and conditioner would make the hair physically stronger, rather than more resistant to brushing. We noted TV ad (b) included the on-screen text "*Strength measured against resistance to brushing", whereas press ad (a) did not qualify the meaning of the "10X stronger" claim. We considered that press ad (a) had not made clear that hair strength was being measured against resistance to breaking when brushing and concluded that the "10X stronger" claim was likely to mislead without further clarification.

We noted the trial detailed in the report tested the reduction in fibre breakage of both wet hair and hair that had been blow dried and also noted the trial showed that following the application of the tresemme naturals shampoo and conditions, hair breakage was significantly reduced compared to that of tresemme cleansing shampoo alone. We acknowledged that press ad (a) and TV ad (b) included the text "TRESemme Naturals Shampoo and Conditioner versus non conditioning shampoo" and considered that this adequately qualified the nature of the comparison. We noted the trial was carried out on hair that had been bleached and considered that, although this illustrated the likely results of the shampoo and conditioner on heat or colour damaged hair, Alberto-Culver had not demonstrated that the product would have an effect of the same magnitude on all hair types. We also noted Alberto-Culvers comments that the majority of Tresemme customers, and based on market share, the majority of UK women, coloured or highlighted their hair. However, we considered that, based on those calculations, a large number of women in the UK did not colour treat their hair and noted the ads did not specifically state that the "10x stronger" claim related to users with coloured treated hair. We considered that, because the ads did not specifically state that the "10x stronger" claim applied to hair that was bleached consumers would understand the claim to apply to all hair types. Because Alberto-Culver had not demonstrated this, we concluded that the claim "Giving you hair that's 10X stronger after only one use" had not been substantiated. We therefore concluded that press ad (a) and TV ad (b) were misleading.

Press ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.7 and 3.11 (Misleading advertising) and TV ad (b) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.9 and 3.12 (Misleading advertising).

Action

Press ad (a) and TV ad (b) should not appear again in their current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)