ASA Adjudication on Philips Electronics UK Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for the Sonicare FlexCare toothbrush, showed images to represent the evolution of the latest toothbrush that included an index finger, twig, and manual toothbrush. The text, underneath the images, stated "Philips Sonicare FlexCare removes more plaque than any other premium power toothbrush. Simplicity is the latest evolution in oral care. Introducing Philips Sonicare FlexCare, the power toothbrush that sets a new standard for effective plaque removal … FlexCare is clinically proven to remove more plaque than Oral-B Triumph … Welcome to a new era of clean …"

Issue

1. Oral-B, and a member of the public, challenged the claim "removes more plaque than any other premium power toothbrush".

2. Oral-B also objected that the claims "sets a new standard for effective plaque removal" and "Welcome to a new era of clean" misleadingly implied the product was significantly better in removing plaque and cleaning teeth than its predecessors and competitors.  They understood that there was little difference between them.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Philips said they had objective and reputable evidence, in the form of clinical studies, to support their claims.  They said the research institutions at which the studies had been conducted were entirely independent in organisation and operation from Philips.  They said those studies had been conducted in compliance with well accepted clinical protocols and procedures and had demonstrated statistically significant differences in plaque removal in favour of the Sonicare Flexcare.  They highlighted two studies which had been conducted against Oral-B's leading oscillating rotating power toothbrush, the Oral-B Triumph.  In addition to those studies they said they had conducted clinical studies against the Oral-B Sonic Complete, Philips' predecessor sonic product the Sonicare Elite and leading premium products marketed in Japan and the USA.

They highlighted a review of the clinical research on the Flexcare that was published in the dental magazine, Compendium, which they believed provided further evidence to substantiate their claim.  They pointed out that Compendium was a peer-reviewed journal and the articles within the review contained work by leading dental researchers, not only from Philips but by academics from several key dental research facilities throughout the world.  

Philips said the market for premium power toothbrushes in the UK consisted only of Philips and Oral-B products, all of which had been tested in the studies they had provided.  They said in their experience, consumers tended to associate a price point of around £70 or higher as equating to a 'premium' power toothbrush.  They said the only products with a selling price greater than £70 in September 2007 were the Flexcare, Philips Sonicare Elite, Oral-B Triumph and Oral-B Sonic Complete.  Philips said they believed the average consumer or dental professional could not possibly be misled about the products that were involved in the 'premium' market, and would not mistakenly infer that Philips had tested its product against each and every power toothbrush on the market.  

Philips said that after receiving the complaint they had been made aware that Oral-B had conducted its own clinical study, which compared the plaque removal of the Oral-B Triumph with that of the Flexcare and had found that the Triumph removed 21% more plaque.  They said that the Oral-B study had been conducted using a different plaque measurement index and a different comparative data analysis approach to their own studies.  They said that it was impossible to make direct comparisons between the studies and that, in light of the differences and the fact that it was only one study, they believed there was not a significant division of informed opinion and their evidence had not been undermined.

2. Philips argued that consumers would not interpret claims such as "new era" and "new standard" as absolute.  However, even if that was not the case, they believed the claims complied with the Code.  They said their studies demonstrated statistically significant differences in favour of the Flexcare.  They said that if a properly designed and well-conducted study resulted in a statistically significant difference in favour of a product then it was clearly not misleading, inaccurate or an exaggeration to claim superiority of that product.

In addition, Philips said the superior results achieved by the Flexcare represented a significant improvement over previous Sonicare toothbrushes.  They said considerable technological innovation had been introduced in the area of the drive train (which moved the brush head), the brush head design (including the bristle configuration and interface with the drive train) and the ergonomics of the product (making it lighter, easier to use and with greater reach into the oral cavity), all of which further enhanced the core sonic technology first introduced under the Sonicare brand in the early 1990s.  The combination of those elements, they said, resulted in improved efficacy in plaque removal as demonstrated in the evidence they had sent.  They said the celebratory tag line "Welcome to a new era of clean" was not an exaggeration in light of the scientific facts and the results of 15 years of continuous innovation in the development of power toothbrushes.  

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA noted Philips' had based the claim on their clinical trials data, which compared the Sonicare Flexcare with its predecessor product, the Sonicare Elite, and Oral-B's Triumph and Sonic Complete models.  We considered that they had compared appropriate products.  

We took expert advice.  Our expert noted Philips' studies were well designed and used a widely recognised plaque index and that the results of their published studies did demonstrate statistically significant results in favour of the Flexcare.  However, our expert also noted the disparity between the results of Philips' study, which compared the Flexcare and the Oral-B Triumph, and the results of Oral-B's unpublished study, which compared the same toothbrushes and found that the Oral-B Triumph removed 20% more plaque than the Flexcare.  Our expert noted the studies had been designed differently and it was therefore not possible to make a direct comparison between them, or to explain the disparity between the findings.  Although we acknowledged Philip's assertion that they had been unaware of the Oral-B study at the time the ad was published and that Philips' evidence demonstrated statistically significant results, we noted that Oral-B's study also demonstrated significantly significant results that contradicted the findings of Philips' research.  

Our expert also noted the results of Philips' studies, although statistically significant, had been expressed as percentage differences.   For example, one study, which compared the Flexcare with the Oral-B Triumph, found that the Flexcare had a 6% higher plaque-reduction score overall, whereas the actual difference in plaque score was 0.22.  The expert considered that the differences between the toothbrushes tested were, in clinical terms, small and were therefore unlikely to be considered clinically significant, i.e. they were unlikely to result in a meaningful change in performance for the consumer.   

We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claims "sets a new standard for effective plaque removal" and "Welcome to a new era of clean" to mean that the Flexcare was significantly better at removing plaque than its competitors and its predecessor products.

We concluded that, because of the conflict between the results of Philips' and Oral-B's studies and because there were only small differences in the plaque removal scores of the toothbrushes tested, the claims "removes more plaque than any other premium power toothbrush", "sets a new standard for effective plaque removal" and "welcome to a new era of clean" had not been substantiated adequately enough and were likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products), 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Action

We told Philips not to repeat the claims "removes more plaque than any other premium power toothbrush", "sets a new standard for effective plaque removal" and "welcome to a new era of clean".  We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team for their future advertising.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)