ASA Adjudication on Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad for Olay Definity, a skincare product, showed a close-up photograph of a model with a clear complexion. Text stated "Fight what ages you most. P.S. It's not just wrinkles but also dullness and discolourations [sic]". Text at the foot of the ad stated "78% of women who tried it, said it was the best skincare product they've ever used*". The asterisk was linked to small print that stated "*Based on a sample of 118 women …".

Issue

The complainant, who believed the model's face in the photograph had been airbrushed, challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it exaggerated the effects likely to be achieved by the advertised product.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Procter and Gamble (P&G) said post-production techniques had been used on the photograph of the model in the ad; they believed this was obvious and said it had been intentional.  They explained that the objective of the ad was to raise awareness of the new product name "Definity" and to celebrate the concept of 'luminosity'.  They said there was often an aspirational dimension in the advertising of beauty products and, in this ad, the prominent product name and accompanying visual image, which was pixellised and appeared in a triangle of surreal light, were designed to demonstrate this in an obviously dramatised, idealised way; the 'luminosity' theme was highlighted by a halo, which surrounded the model's face, and a light shining from behind, which illuminated and gave an aura to the entire visual image and product name.  They believed the image in the ad was both beautiful and aspirational.

P&G pointed out that the ad did not use 'before' and 'after' techniques or a side by side demonstration.  They said it did not offer a promise of product performance and, in their view, did not mislead consumers.  They said it was standard practice to use beautiful models and post-production techniques for images in beauty advertising, where the beauty aspect was being presented as truly aspirational.

P&G said the ad was no longer in print and they had no plans to use it again.

Saatchi & Saatchi (S&S), the agency acting for P&G, said the ad was designed to celebrate the luminous skin that the product Definity helped to achieve.  They explained that, as an anti-ageing product, Definity not only tackled lines and wrinkles, but also helped with areas of skin discolouration, which over time appeared less uneven and which, in turn, resulted in more luminous skin.  They said the creative treatment in the ad highlighted this sense of luminosity, through the use of pixellation and a triangle of 'blown out' light, which created a specific lighting effect that enhanced the luminosity of the image.  They believed consumers would clearly understand that the ad presented a sense of aura around the model's face.  They explained that airbrushing techniques were used to enhance the luminosity and help create the aura, but they did not believe that to be misleading.

S&S said they always tried to ensure that ads for Olay products presented an idea of aspirational, natural skin.  They said, as a brand that was intended to appeal to women in an approachable and engaging way, it would not be in their interest to alienate women by representing fake, over-idealised skin.  They explained that the woman's image used in the ad was for illustrative purposes only and added that they had used an attractive, older woman to appeal to their target female audience, not as an example of how a consumer would look as a result of using the product.  They pointed out that the ad's text neither made that claim nor related to the image.  They believed, because the ad did not state or imply that a consumer would look like the model in the photograph as a result of using the product, it was not relevant or misleading to use post-production techniques to enhance the model's attractiveness.  

They pointed out that the ad did not use a before and after scenario, where the model's image was airbrushed to enhance the 'after' image; they believed that technique could potentially mislead consumers.  They said there was no suggestion in the ad that the model's appearance was as a result of using the product.  They also explained that they had purposefully chosen a model who had visible signs of ageing in order to communicate an anti-ageing product to an age-appropriate audience.  They believed, if they had used a much younger model, the appearance of the skin could have arguably looked unrealistic to consumers, because research showed that women considered that images of very young models with youthfully flawless skin in ads for this type of product could mislead.  They said it was clear that they had sought to avoid this.  

S&S said the beauty industry understood that women wanted to see aspirational characters in ads.  They pointed out that, if no post-production techniques were used, the results could be very unappealing; even the most beautiful models did not always look at their best.  They argued that it was common practice to use post-production techniques to improve the visual elements of ads and believed this was acceptable, providing that the post-production did not render the ad misleading; they said this position was understood throughout the advertising industry and was not restricted to beauty advertising.          

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that the model's image in the photograph had been airbrushed and noted the complainant's concern that, in her view, the image misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product.

We considered, however, that, although the model's face appeared naturalistic, it was clear that post-production techniques had been used in the stylisation of the overall visual image of the ad: the image was partly pixellated and the model's face appeared in a glow of light.  We considered that the majority of readers would understand that the image, when considered as a whole, was aspirational and was used only for illustrative purposes.  We also noted the model wore full make up and considered that it was clear that the appearance of the model's skin had not been achieved by the product alone.    

We considered that it was not unreasonable for P&G to use post-production techniques to enhance the visual appearance of their ad, providing that any manipulation did not make the ad misleading or likely to mislead.  We considered that, in this case, the image was not used to represent the results achievable from the use of the product alone, but acted as a signpost to readers, indicating its nature as a facial cream for older women.  We concluded that, in this case, the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.4 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.               

Action

No action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)