ASA Adjudication on The Boots Company plc

Ad

A magazine ad in Best, Chat, OK and Mother & Baby and a radio ad for Boots expert nipple cream.

a. The magazine ad featured a sketch of a woman holding her baby at arm's length with a grimace on her face. Her dress was open and showed the skin on her breast stretched taut from the baby's mouth. Text stated "Look at you with your cute little nose ... And cute little fingers ... And cute little everything really. Well, except that strong sucking action of yours on my sore nipples. It's not how it's MEANT to be. The mothers in the breastfeeding pamphlets are always smiling serenely. NOT GRIMACING IN PAIN. That's ok, I'll think about the bonding. Still there's always the other side ... Oh, no, that one HURTS too. For the first time in my life I wish I had three nipples." Text at the foot of the ad stated "If you've got cracked nipples, Boots understands how it feels ... The new Boots Expert range. For every problem there's now an expert solution. "

b. The radio ad stated "Oh what a cute little nose and cute little fingers and cute little ARGH sore nipples! This isn't how it's meant to be. Mothers in breastfeeding pamphlets are always smiling serenely not grimacing in pain. Might just try the other side. Awww that one hurts too. For the first time in my life, I wish I had three nipples.'' If you've got sore cracked nipples, Boots understand how it feels. That's why they've put over 150 years of expertise into creating a range of solutions for life's everyday problems, like their moisturising nipple cream. The new Boots Expert range. For every problem, there's now an expert solution."

Issue

The ASA received complaints about the ad from The Association of Breastfeeding Mothers (ABM), The National Childbirth Trust (NCT) and 17 members of the public.

ABM, NCT and 13 members of the public believed the ads were misleading because:

1. they implied that sore nipples were normal when breastfeeding, whereas they believed sore nipples were almost always caused by incorrect feeding techniques; and

2. they implied that the cream alone could resolve the problem of sore nipples, without addressing the importance of correct feeding techniques.

3. ABM, NCT and 11 members of the public believed the ads were irresponsible, because they might discourage new mothers from seeking professional guidance about correct feeding techniques or discourage them from seeking professional diagnosis for their condition.

4. ABM and seven members of the public believed the ads were irresponsible, because they might discourage new mothers from breastfeeding.

5. ABM and 16 members of the public believed the ads were offensive, because they presented an unfair and negative image of breastfeeding.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP Radio Code

Response

1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. The Boots Company plc (Boots) explained that the ads were examples from a campaign featuring different products in the Boots Expert range.  They said the ads were designed to convey the message that Boots had a number of products to help with lifes small problems.

Boots said the ads looked at a problem, commonly experienced by breastfeeding mothers, in a light-hearted and humorous way. They accepted that one of the main causes of sore and cracked nipples during breastfeeding was the incorrect latching of the baby to the breast, but said the continual wetting and drying of the skin could also cause dryness, soreness and eventual cracking.

Boots said sales figures confirmed that nipple cream was a popular product that had been sold for many years to alleviate soreness and believed they had accurately represented the views of breastfeeding mothers. They said they had not intended to discourage women either from breastfeeding or from seeking professional advice.  Boots believed they were assisting mothers in a positive way by providing a solution that would allow them to continue breastfeeding.

Boots said it had not been their intention to offend consumers or to undermine the work of healthcare professionals and midwives. They told the ASA that they would not use the ads again and said, if they decided to advertise the nipple cream in future, they would take on board the concerns expressed by the complainants.  

The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) said ad (b) targeted breastfeeding women who were suffering from sore nipples; it was set in the context of a woman who had access to literature on breastfeeding, suffered from sore nipples, yet wanted to continue breastfeeding.  The RACC disagreed that the ad implied sore nipples were a normal consequence of breastfeeding; they pointed to the statement "it shouldn't be like this" as evidence of that.  They said the nipple cream simply removed a barrier to breastfeeding by allaying mothers' fears over developing sore nipples; it offered a solution rather than suggesting that breastfeeding should be avoided altogether.  The RACC added that, as the product targeted breastfeeding mothers, it would be counterproductive for Boots to seek to discourage breastfeeding. They disagreed that the ads were offensive or presented an unfair and negative image of breastfeeding, nor did they believe that the ads were irresponsible or likely to discourage new mothers from breastfeeding.

Mother & Baby magazine said they had featured ads by Boots for many years and had never encountered problems with their advertising copy.  They said Boots were no longer running ad (a).

Best magazine said they considered that ad (a) was suitable for their readers as it was a topic that featured frequently in the Health section of the magazine and it was something with which many readers were familiar.  They told us they had not received any complaints about ad (a).

OK magazine said they believed ad (a) was unlikely to offend their readers and had therefore considered it suitable for their publication.  They told us they had not received any complaints about ad (a).

Chat said they had no comments to make in respect of ad (a).

Assessment

The ASA considered that the ads targeted breastfeeding mothers and that audience was likely to be reasonably well informed about breastfeeding techniques and the causes of sore nipples, through attendance of antenatal classes or through reading antenatal literature; we noted both ads made reference to "breastfeeding pamphlets".  

1. Not upheld

We noted Boots' and the RACC's comments.  We noted text in ad (a) stated "It's not how it's meant to be" and the voice-over in ad (b) said "This isn't how it's meant to be".  We understood that sore nipples could be caused by incorrect feeding techniques but considered that the statements in both ads made clear to the target audience that sore nipples were not typical during breastfeeding.  We concluded that readers and listeners were unlikely to be misled by ad (a) or ad (b).

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and ad (b) under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2, rule 3 (Misleadingness) but did not find them in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the complainants' belief that the ad should have made clear that nipple cream alone would not resolve the problem of sore nipples.  We understood that if incorrect feeding techniques were not addressed, the problem of sore nipples could continue.  We considered, however, that the ad merely sought to advise breastfeeding women that, if they experienced nipple pain, the Boots 'Expert' nipple cream could help to alleviate it.  We considered that they would already understand the importance of correct feeding techniques through any antenatal preparation they had undertaken.  We concluded that readers and listeners were unlikely to infer that nipple cream alone would resolve the problem of sore nipples and would therefore not be misled by ad (a) or ad (b).   

On this point , we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and ad (b) under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2, rule 3 (Misleadingness) but did not find them in breach.

3. Not upheld

We considered that new mothers were likely to have received appropriate guidance on breastfeeding techniques at the antenatal stage, as well as after the birth of their baby.  We considered most new mothers would be unlikely to ignore nipple pain and would discuss any problems with a healthcare professional.  We considered that the ad was unlikely to discourage new mothers from seeking professional guidance about correct feeding techniques or discourage them from seeking professional diagnosis for their condition.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 50.2 and 50.3 (Health and beauty products and therapies - General) and ad (b) under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2, rule 10 (Harm) and section 3, rule 4.9 (Conditions requiring medical advice) but did not find them in breach.  

4. Not upheld

We considered that many expectant mothers were likely to receive advice on breastfeeding from healthcare professionals and they were therefore likely to be aware of the discomfort that could occur due to incorrect latching of the baby to the nipple during breastfeeding.  We noted however that ads (a) and (b) included statements to the effect that sore nipples were not an inevitable consequence of breastfeeding.  Because the ads demonstrated that sore nipples were not typical, we considered that they were unlikely to discourage new mothers from breastfeeding.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clause 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and ad (b) under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code Section 2, rule 10 (Harm) but did not find them in breach.

5. Not upheld

We considered that the ads focused on the problem of sore nipples, not the act of breastfeeding itself and we understood that the purpose of the cream was to enable mothers to continue breastfeeding.  We noted some readers of ad (a) found the images offensive, particularly because the image of the mother with her baby was not an accurate depiction of breastfeeding.  We nevertheless considered that most readers were likely to view them as a light-hearted reference to a problem experienced by some breastfeeding women.  We concluded that ads (a) and (b) did not present either an unfair or negative image of breastfeeding and were therefore unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) and ad (b) under CAP Broadcast Radio Advertising Code section 2, rule 9 (Good taste, decency and offence to public feeling) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)