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

Ad

A national press ad, for a wrinkle filler, included text that stated "NEW Olay regenerist 30 second wrinkle filler Instantly reduces the appearance of wrinkles and lasts throughout the day". Text below stated "The advanced micro-bead formula fills and smoothes the appearance of lines and deep wrinkles to give precise results all day. So if you have 30 seconds, you can have younger looking skin".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether Proctor & Gamble could substantiate the claims that Olay Regenerist:

1. was effective at reducing the appearance of wrinkles throughout the day, and

2. could reduce the appearance of wrinkles within 30 seconds.

CAP Code

Response

Proctor and Gamble (Health and Beauty Care) Ltd (P&G) said a precision application tip worked by physically depositing powders, and the spherical silicones in which they were suspended, into lines and wrinkles in the skin.  The effect was such that the crease was filled and, in addition, a blurring effect reduced optical contrast to make lines appear less visible.  

1. P&G said the claim to reduce the appearance of wrinkles was supported by consumer feedback as well as by testing conducted by a technical expert, using four different products applied to half of the face by the participant over the course of two sessions.  Neither the expert nor the consumers knew what any of those products were.  Each side of the face was initially graded by the experts according to the severity of the lines and then was rated again 10 minutes after the treatment had been applied; that was the time taken to apply the product plus the time taken for the visual assessment.  

Results had shown repeatedly that the effects were easily noticeable, by experts and consumers, as would be expected for a cosmetic product. Although the grading scale used was large, even small effects were easily noticeable and the results showed a significant difference in eye and cheek lines after 10 minutes when the Regenerist Wrinkle Filler was used alone.  They sent before and after images of skin mimic samples, a table of results of the expert testing and a table of some consumer ratings of the product. It had been rated when used for two weeks in conjunction with Olay Regenerist Daily Regenerating Serum, as per the on-pack recommendation.  

The on-pack recommendation to use the products in conjunction was made to optimise the benefits consumers would experience when they used the wrinkle filler. The expert testing had shown that the benefits of using both products together were significantly greater than using either of them alone.  Qualitative research had shown that Olay Regenerist customers used a combination of moisturiser and targeted products to reduce the appearance of lines and wrinkles; because that was the case, they would achieve the all-day result referred to in the ad.  P&G argued that it would not be reasonable to ask women to use the wrinkle filler alone because it was not a moisturiser. The Regenerating Serum was used as a standard control moisturiser during the consumer study and it was made clear to the consumer panellists that they were evaluating the wrinkle filler only and not the serum.  The ratings given by the panellists applied only to the wrinkle filler and not to the combination of products.  P&G said they had no plans to repeat the ad, however, they would make clear in future ads the basis of claims based on consumer studies.          

2. P&G said the product had a purely physical mode of action and worked as soon as it was applied to the skin. In a study of ten women the average time taken to apply the product was 26 seconds and therefore the effect could said to be achieved in less than 30 seconds.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the information submitted by P&G.  We also noted however that we had not seen the entire study conducted by the technical expert and, nevertheless, the results we had seen from that study did not relate to the claim that the product was effective throughout the day.  We noted that 99 per cent of 91 consumers, aged 30 to 65 years, rated the product as being excellent, very good or good at lasting all day. However, that rating referred to the product only when used in conjunction with Olay Regenerist Daily Regenerating Serum.  Because we had not seen evidence that the wrinkle filler alone was effective at reducing the appearance of wrinkles throughout the day, we considered that the claim had not been substantiated.  We noted the on-pack instructions recommended that the wrinkle filler be used in conjunction with the serum but considered that the ad did not make clear that the results were based on the views of consumers who had used both together.  On this point, we concluded that the ad was misleading.  We welcomed P&G's assurance that they would make the basis of claims based on consumer studies clear in future ads.  

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies).

2. Not upheld

We understood that the product had an immediate cosmetic effect and that P&G had conducted a study, the results of which indicated that it took ten women an average of 26 seconds to apply the product.  We considered it was reasonable to suggest that a cosmetic product could be effective at reducing the appearance of wrinkles immediately on application and that such a product could be applied in 30 seconds.  On this point, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told P&G to ensure they made clear the basis on which future claims were made.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)