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

Ad

A TV ad for an epilator showed two women in short skirts. Bubbles were blowing around; one popped when it touched the leg of the woman who used wax strips, whereas they bounced off the leg of the woman who used the epilator. A graphic compared hair removal using the product and hair removal using a wax strip. On-screen text stated "Removes 7x more short hairs". Further text at the bottom of the screen stated "as short as 0.5 mm". The voice-over stated "In-between days holding you back? Not any more. New Silk-Epil's advanced hair lift system lifts and removes up to seven times more short hairs than wax. For weeks of long-lasting smoothness, helping make in-between days history."

Issue

Reckitt Benckiser (Reckitt) challenged whether:

1. the claim that Silk-Epil removed seven times more short hairs than wax was misleading;

2. the depiction of bubbles bouncing off the epilated skin but popping on the other woman's skin was misleading and denigratory, because it implied that waxing would leave prickly hair behind; and

3. the ad, and in particular the graphic comparison, was misleading because it implied that waxing would leave behind longer hairs, whereas wax strips were 95% effective on hairs as short as 2 mm.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Braun said wax and epilators were both effective at the instant removal of longer leg hairs.  They explained that the difficulty arose when consumers wished to remove the shorter hairs, which, when left, would continue to grow.  They said the longer those hairs were, or the more of them there were, the sooner the consumer would feel the need to renew the process of removal.  They claimed that because it was relatively difficult to remove short hairs with wax, the waxing process could not usefully be repeated until the hairs had grown to a sufficient length.  They maintained that the ad focused on the epilator's ability to remove more of the short hairs and thus leave the consumer with a smoother feel when compared with the period "in between" waxing applications.  They pointed out that, for that reason, the ad referred to "in-between days", "short hairs" and "as short as 0.5 mm".

1.  Braun said they had submitted a study to Clearcast in support of the claims in the ad.  They explained that the study, conducted in May/June 2007, showed that Braun X'Elle performed up to seven times better than Veet warm wax on short hairs, i.e., hairs 0.5 mm in length.  They said the ad referred to "in-between days", the period in between waxes where the growth of these short hairs re-growing were a consumer issue.  They said the 0.5 mm length was tested to demonstrate usage of the epilator after just 2-3 days of hair growth, when waxing was not recommended.  They added that when hair was 2 mm or longer, waxing could be carried out and they therefore considered that that length did not represent "in-between days", but they had also obtained test data on hair of that length as the basis for a comparison where hair length would allow the person to choose whether to wax or epilate. They pointed out that the Veet website stated that their wax should be used on hair of a minimum length of 2-5 mm.

Clearcast endorsed Braun's comments.  They said both they and their consultant had approved the substantiation and considered it sufficient to support the claims.  They were satisfied that the demonstration scenes were fair and accurate, and did not consider them to be misleading

2. Braun said the bubbles were used merely to provide a visual metaphor to communicate smoothness.  They argued that that type of visual imagery was used regularly across the advertising industry, and pointed out that Reckitt had used a similar technique in an ad for "Veet Million Dollars" the previous year, that showed computer-generated cacti emerging from a woman's legs.  They said that ad made specific reference to prickliness and, after one application of the product, a magical glow and sparkle was seen to emanate from the same area of the woman's legs.  They argued that, in a similar manner, an ad for a woman's razor depicted a woman sliding off her chair as a result of smooth legs, which would not be seen as realistic but merely visual imagery easily understood by viewers.  They said viewers were not expected to believe that a bubble would roll down anyone's leg, in the same way that they would not have believed that anyone would slide down chairs as a result of smoother legs, but would understand that the bubbles were merely conveying the concept of smoothness.

Clearcast endorsed Braun's comments.  They said they considered the visuals and the claims not to be denigratory, but, rather, a fair representation of some women's experiences of "in-between days" as spelt out in the ad.

3.  Braun pointed out that the ad specifically referred to "in-between days" and "short hairs", and expressly stated "hairs as short as 0.5 mm".  They said it was therefore difficult to understand the complaint that viewers would believe, as a result of the computer-generated image, that waxing would leave behind longer hairs.  They said the image depicted hairs left on both sets of legs, and that Clearcast had agreed that the visual comparison was accurate.  They argued that, although Reckitt had referred to wax strips being 95% effective on hairs as short as 2 mm, which would still leave behind 5% of the hairs, the ad was specifically looking at hairs shorter than 2 mm.

Clearcast endorsed Braun's comments. They said they were satisfied that the demonstration scenes were fair and accurate, and did not consider them to be misleading. They sent a copy of the substantiation they had assessed, which was a comparison between waxing and epilating.

Assessment

1. Upheld

 We noted the test submitted by Braun compared the performance of the X'Elle epilator with Veet warm wax strips on hairs 0.5 mm and 2 mm in length.  We noted epilation removed over seven times more 0.5 mm length hair than wax on the first stroke and nearly six times more on the second stroke.  However, on 2 mm hair the difference in efficacy levels was less marked, with the epilator removing around four and two times more hair on the first and second strokes respectively.  We noted the voice-over stated "up to seven times", but the caption stated "removes 7x more short hairs."  We considered that viewers would be likely to think of hair 2 mm or longer as still being relatively "short" hair, and, since it was the very shortest recommended length for waxing, might still consider it an "in-between" length  and we noted the "7x" claim did not apply to hair of that length.  Because the quoted efficacy figure applied only to the very shortest hairs and exaggerated the difference that would be achieved, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code Rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising).

2. Not upheld

The ASA noted Reckitt's comment that bubbles would burst on a leg irrespective of hair length.  We also noted Braun argued that viewers would not believe a bubble could roll down anyone's leg.  We considered that viewers would see the bubbles as a visual metaphor for smoothness.  We considered they would realise that the focus of the ad was on 'in-between days' when the hair had just started to grow again and when many women felt the hair was not long enough to wax again.  We considered that the ad did not suggest that waxing would leave prickly hairs behind and concluded that the comparative visual was not misleading and did not denigrate wax hair removal products.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code Rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.4.3 (Denigration) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted the graphic showed the wax strip leaving behind hairs of varying lengths whereas the epilator appeared to remove all but the shortest hairs.  We considered that the repeated references to short hairs, in-between days, and the caption "as short as 0.5 mm" made it clear that all the hairs in the graphic were intended to be of relatively short lengths.  We considered that viewers would understand that the hairs represented in the graphic were relatively short and would not infer that waxing would leave behind longer hairs.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code Rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

Action

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

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)