ASA Adjudication on Avon Cosmetics Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for a skin exfoliant, showed a woman looking at herself in a bathroom mirror. The voice-over stated "Now experience multi-level dermabrasion at home. Avon introduces a new clinical advanced dermabrasion, the first four-level exfoliating treatment that lets you dial up the intensity every two weeks." On-screen text stated "Advanced Dermabrasion is not equivalent to dermatologist's procedures". On-screen text then stated "Level 1" and voice-over stated "texture improves"; on-screen text stated "Level 2" and voiceover stated "skin tone brightens"; on screen text stated "Level 3" and voice-over stated "fine lines fade"; and finally on-screen text stated "Level 4" and voice-over stated "100% of women showed improved clarity". The ad ended by stating "A new clinical advanced dermabrasion... say hello tomorrow."

Issue

The ASA challenged whether:

1. the claim "Fine lines fade" implied that the product could remove lines rather than reduce the appearance of lines; and

2. the claim "dial up the intensity every two weeks" implied a cumulative or persistent effect.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Avon Cosmetics Ltd (Avon) submitted a letter from an expert Clearcast had consulted. He said he was satisfied that:

1. Avon had provided clinical and consumer data to show that the visual appearance of fine lines was reduced when using the product, and that the effect was more pronounced towards the end of the study. He said the data showed that the combination of dermabrasive elements reduced the visual appearance of fine lines and he believed consumers would be unlikely to see a difference between the claims "fine lines fade" and "the appearance of fine lines fades";

2. the product contained various abrasive ingredients housed in two separate tubes. The expert said the contents of the tubes were mixed by changing the aperture which changed the mix between the two tubes and as a result changed the abrasive intensity of the application. He said he believed that, in demonstrating that the abrasive composition of the applied product mix could be increased in a controlled manner, the advertiser had proved that the intensity of the product could be dialled up every two weeks. He said the advertiser's data also showed that the effects of the product became more noticeable over the period of the trial. He said the use of ever increasing levels of abrasive materials, combined with rubbing or massage would continue to remove cellular material from the upper layers of the skin. He said he believed the claim did not imply a persistent effect beyond the length of time the product was used for, and that there was likely to be a period of recovery after cessation of product use and then the skin would return to its pre-product use status.

Clearcast believed the claim "fine lines fade" referred to the visible effect of the product and not to any underlying physiological change in the skin. They said they considered the claim "dial up the intensity every two weeks" referred to the abrasive effect of the product, which could be gradually increased using the dispensing system.

Clearcast and Avon submitted the results of clinical and consumer data on the product. They also sent a sample of the product.

Assessment

The ASA noted the studies supplied by Avon were conducted by an independent laboratory in the United States and included both consumer perception studies and results observed by dermatologists. We understood that the product was an exfoliant which contained ingredients used in professional dermatological treatments. From inspecting the product sample we observed that it was dispensed in such a way that the exfoliant mix could be altered, making it either more gentle or more forceful, by using the different dispensing apertures which mixed the ingredients from the two conjoined tubes in different amounts. We also noted the product was designed to be used for eight weeks consecutively with two weeks at each "level" of exfoliant intensity and then consumers were advised to rest the skin for two weeks before beginning again at Level 1. We took expert advice on the evidence supplied.

Our expert said that one of the tests was carried out on the skin of the arm, which he did not believe was a good model for facial skin. He said he noted the results deviated from other published studies of a similar nature, and the design of the study would not be able to show cumulative effect. The expert said that a second trial, a home-use test, was an uncontrolled, non-blinded user trial of the product. He said both the subjects and the assessing dermatologist knew the subjects were treating themselves with the product and there was no comparison with a group not using or not being treated with the product. He noted the trial extended over eight weeks and said without a control it could not be ruled out that any changes in the appearance of fine lines reported were the result of other factors, such as different menstrual cycle phases and/or different weather conditions. Notwithstanding those concerns with the design of the tests, he said the actual change in the appearance of fine lines reported was, in his view, in any case very slight.

Our expert accepted that the product would have an abrasive action and that, if used correctly, the mixture would become more abrasive as the dial was turned to a higher number. However, he said he had not seen scientific evidence justifying the claimed beneficial effects of a gradual increase in abrasive intensity. He said he did not consider the data were sufficiently robust to support an implication of cumulative beneficial effect.

1. Upheld

We noted the consumers involved in the studies reported that their fine lines were less visible after using the product. However, we also noted the percentage improvement in fine lines reported by participants was substantially higher than that reported by the assessing dermatologist. Moreover, the graded changes observed by the assessing dermatologist were, in our expert's opinion, actually very small.

We noted our expert's observation that the study was not double-blinded or controlled, which meant that participants' self-reported changes could be affected by other factors, including an expectation that dialing up the intensity of the abrasive mix would produce a stronger result. Nevertheless, we considered exfoliants were likely to be able to improve the appearance of skin to some degree by removing older skin cells and revealing younger fresher ones; we accepted that a temporary improvement in the appearance of fine lines might result from use of the product but noted our expert's view that Avon's evidence was inconclusive about this .

However, we considered that the claim "fine lines fade", particularly in the context of an ad which used the term "clinical", gave the impression that the product could remove fine lines, rather than merely temporarily reducing their appearance. Because we had not seen evidence to show that, we concluded the ad could mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 (Misleading advertising).

2. Upheld

We noted the view of Clearcast, and the expert they had consulted, that the claim "dial up the intensity every two weeks" referred to the abrasive composition of the product mix, which could be increased in a controlled manner. However, the claim appeared in the context of a two-week by two-week, four step regime - the on-screen text stated "Level 1", "Level 2", "Level 3" and "Level 4" and voiceover stated "texture improves", "skin tone brightens", "fine lines fade" and "100% of women showed improved clarity". We considered that gave the impression the product had a  cumulative and persistent effect on skin, with effects improving incrementally over time and persisting.

The consumers involved in the studies reported that their fine lines were less visible after using the product, with the percentage improvement reported increasing from two weeks to eight weeks of product use. However, most of the women in the study reported most of the improvement after two weeks. We noted our expert's view that he had not seen scientific evidence justifying the claimed beneficial effects of a gradual increase in abrasive intensity over eight weeks. In addition, we noted that after eight weeks consumers were required to cease product use for two weeks and begin again with the most gentle exfoliant mix (Level 1). No data were provided beyond the eight-week period.

We considered that the advertisers had not substantiated the implied cumulative and persistent beneficial effect of the eight-week regime. We concluded the ad could mislead.

On this point the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Code rules 5.2.1 and 5.2.1 (Misleading advertising).

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)