ASA Adjudication on Procter & Gamble UK

Ad

A TV ad, for Max Factor Age Renew foundation, showed a model before and after applying the product. Text at the bottom of the screen stated “Dramatisation”. A voiceover stated “Would you like to know how to look years younger, instantly? My tip? New Max Factor’s Age Renew. It gives you the coverage you need to instantly diminish the look of fine lines and illuminate skin. Look up to five years younger, in a flash…”

Issue

The viewers complained that the ad was misleading because soft focus, lighting and airbrushing techniques were used on the "after" shots to exaggerate the effect of the foundation. One viewer challenged whether the product worked as claimed.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Procter & Gamble (P&G) said the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) had approved their claims support document before the ad was aired. They said it contained all the evidence required in support of the claims made in the ad. They also sent photographs taken before and after use of the product which, they said, showed there was no exaggeration in the ad. They said prior to production final approval was given by their Product Development department who used the photographs to ensure the results matched the effect seen on screen. They claimed the photos clearly showed the effect of Max Factor Age Renew and that that was accurately represented in the ad.

The BACC said before they approved the script their consultant had examined P&Gs technical data and consumer testing thoroughly in relation to the claims. They pointed out that because the product was by nature a camouflage or covering make-up its effect was likely to be a lot more dramatic than, for example, that of an anti-wrinkle skin cream, and they had borne this in mind when they assessed the ad.

The BACC consultants response to P&Gs claims support document concluded that the data was sufficient to support the claims because they were based on physical changes to the skin through masking and simple moisturisation.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the product was a foundation that was designed to cover blemishes and wrinkles in the skin with temporary effect. We also noted the BACC consultants assessment of the claims support document. We considered that there was sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad, particularly as there was no implication that the effects would be long-lasting. We noted the use of bright flood lighting in the "after" shots of the model. We considered that the lighting used in those shots produced the impression of a more pronounced smoothing, illuminating effect than that shown in the photographs supplied by the advertiser. We considered the setting of a film shoot, the repeated use of flashes from a camera or floodlight throughout the ad and the voiceover that stated "in a flash" would make it clear to most viewers that the "after" shot was a stylised effect as a result of flash lighting. We concluded the ad was unlikely to mislead viewers.

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

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)