ASA Adjudication on Jackel International Ltd

Ad

A brochure ad for the Tommy Tippee Nappy Wrapper nappy disposal system featured an image of the nappy disposal unit in a baby's bedroom with a baby crawling along the floor. Text next to the image stated "With a twist of the wrist you can say goodbye to all your baby's dirty nappies, never to see, touch or, best of all, smell them again!". Text at the bottom of the page stated "TOP TIP. Use your Nappy Wrapper for maternity pads, baby wipes and cotton wool - even razor blades". Text next to a picture of the Nappy Wrapper stated "Easy to Use. Just one twist completely seals away germs and smells ... Hygienic. Nappies are individually wrapped and sealed in an odour-proof, fragranced, anti-bacterial film". Further text stated "Unique, hygienic and easy to use. With the nappy wrapper, nappies are individually wrapped and sealed so that you never have to see them, touch them or smell them again ... REFILL CASSETTE ... At 6-24 months+ Green cassette is designed to give you maximum protection against unpleasant nappy smells and germs".

Issue

Hardenburg & Co Ltd challenged whether the:

1. claim "With a twist of the wrist you can say goodbye to all your baby's dirty nappies, never to see, touch, or best of all, smell them again!" was misleading, because they understood the product's film was see-through and that nappies would therefore be visible when the bin was emptied;

2. claims "Never ... smell them again" and "just one twist completely seals away germs and smells" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they believed the advertiser had conducted consumer research which suggested that the product did not completely seal away odours;

3. claim "completely seals away germs" could be substantiated; and

4. claim "maximum protection against unpleasant smells and germs" misleadingly implied the product provided 100% protection against germs.

CAP Code

Response

1. Jackel International Ltd (Jackel) said there were two films available for use with the Nappy Wrapper, one for babies aged 0-6 months and the second for babies aged 6-24 months. They explained that both films were opaque white in colour, and that to see the nappy through the film would involve examining it very closely, which was something they believed consumers were unlikely to do. They said they had not received any feedback from customers to suggest that the Nappy Wrapper did not perform as described in that respect.

2. Jackel said they had conducted laboratory research on the Nappy Wrapper that showed that both ammonia and hydrogen sulphide, the substances responsible for nappy odours, were not detectable. They submitted a copy of that research. They explained that the claim "just one twist completely seals away germs and smells" appeared in the context of the consumer's ease of use. They said they believed consumers would understand that one twist was all that was necessary to create a permanent barrier to smells and germs.

Jackel said that they had reviewed their use of the word "completely" and that it would be phased out from their marketing communications. They said the word would be removed from the next edition of the brochure, due to be published in July 2008.

3. Jackel referred to their decision to remove the word "completely" outlined above.

Jackel explained that the Nappy Wrapper individually wrapped each nappy in anti-bacterial film before storage in the tub. They said the anti-bacterial agent had been scientifically tested during the development of the films, and they provided copies of that test data. They said the results of those tests were statistically significant and confirmed the effectiveness of the anti-bacterial film in reducing the presence of Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Staphylococcus aureus.

4. Jackel said the term "maximum" was used to differentiate between the 0-6 month film and the 6-24 month film. They explained that weaning usually started at about six months of age, and that nappy smells became stronger at that point. They said 'maximum' referred to the number of features built into the 6-24 month film, which were a multi-layer barrier as opposed to the single layer in the 0-6 month film, an anti-bacterial agent and fragrance. They argued that no other film on the market had all three of those features.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted Jackel's argument that both types of film for the Nappy Wrapper were opaque white in colour. We understood that once a used nappy had been folded and placed inside the film, the contents of the nappy would not be visible and the nappy itself would be obscured. We considered that consumers would understand the claim "say goodbye to your baby's dirty nappies, never to see, touch, or best of all smell them again" to refer to the contents of a used nappy, rather than to the nappy in general. We also considered that consumers would understand that in the process of emptying the Nappy Wrapper the film-wrapped nappies might be visible for the short time that they were transferred from the disposal unit to another bin. We therefore concluded that on this point the ad was not misleading.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted the test data submitted to us by Jackel. We acknowledged that the chemical analyses carried out by the laboratory showed that ammonia and hydrogen sulphide were undetected by gas sensors after four days. However, we also noted that that data contained the results of tests carried out by an Odour Panel Team consisting of 10 members, who appraised the odour quality of the Nappy Wrapper unit after six hours, one day, two days, three days, four days and seven days. We considered that most consumers would empty their Nappy Wrapper on a regular basis, at least once a day, and that it was unlikely that the bin would remain unemptied for seven days. We noted that, after one day, the average rating given by the Odour Panel for the nappy wrapper was at the parameter "perceptible but not annoying", and we considered that that parameter indicated that odour was present to some degree. We acknowledged that Jackel had amended the ad to remove the word "completely" from the claim. Nevertheless, we considered that the amended phrase "one twist seals away ... smells" still represented an absolute claim, and we considered that the contradictory results from the chemical analyses and Odour Panel tests were not substantial enough to support that claim. We therefore concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Not upheld

We understood that, after use, a nappy would be folded and placed inside the plastic film contained within the Nappy Wrapper bin. We also understood that the nappy would be sealed inside that plastic film by turning a 'twisting knob' on the top of the Nappy Wrapper, to create an individual waste package. We considered that consumers would understand the phrase "seals away germs" to mean that bacteria would be effectively contained within the Nappy Wrapper and could not spread beyond it. We understood from the documentation submitted by Jackel that the plastic film contained a broad-spectrum anti-bacterial agent that would prevent bacteria that came into contact with the plastic film from developing further. We considered that, alongside the bacterial agent, the method of disposing of dirty nappies within the unit created a physical barrier between the nappy and the customer. We acknowledged that Jackel had offered to modify the claim by removing the word "completely", however, we concluded that the claim "completely seals away germs" was not misleading.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

We noted Jackel's argument that the claim referred to the extra protection contained in the 6-24 month film when compared to the 0-6 month film. We noted that the claim "Green cassette is designed to give you maximum protection against unpleasant smells and germs" appeared under the list of attributes of the 6-24 month film, and alongside the list of attributes of the 0-6 month film. We therefore considered that most consumers would understand that the claim referred to the fact that the 6-24 month film had the maximum amount of protective features available for that type of product when compared to the 0-6 month film, rather than that the film provided 100% protection against germs. Because we considered that the context for the claim was clear in the ad, we concluded that the claim was not misleading.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Jackel not to repeat the claim that the Nappy Wrapper sealed away smells, and advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team when preparing future similar ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)