Check-up leads to pulling of toothpaste ads
27 February 2006
Monitoring by BCAP resulted in ads by two toothpaste manufacturers being adjudicated on by the ASA and withdrawn because of the way they used recommendations by dentists.
Two ads, one impression
GlaxoSmithKline ran one ad at the beginning of a commercial break and another towards the end. The first ad featured a dentist who said “Patients who are suffering from sensitivity are delighted to hear that they can treat their problem by something as simple as changing their toothpaste. There is a range available which, if used like any normal toothpaste, will reduce the sensitivity and in many cases cut it out altogether.” The ad ended with the text “Ask your dentist about sensitive teeth” appearing on the screen, followed by the GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare logo.
In a commercial later in the break, a woman says to camera “I have sensitive teeth ... It just continually got worse I thought I have to got to go to a dentist.” On-screen text stating “What did her dentist recommend?” appeared. The woman said “Use a toothpaste for sensitive teeth and I thought that’s quite easy so I might as well give it a go. Use Sensodyne two times a day and you can really feel the difference”.
The Monitoring team picked up the ads, identified a breach of the TV Code and discussed it with the BACC, which had cleared the ads for broadcast. The BACC did not agree with BCAP’s interpretation of the Code so the team put the matter to the ASA Council, which is responsible for ruling on potential breaches of the Codes.
What is the Monitoring team?
The Monitoring team supports the work of the ASA, CAP and BCAP by ensuring that compliance does not depend solely on complaints. It monitors ads in a structured and systematic way to ensure compliance with the advertising standards codes across media and industry sectors. If it identifies potential code breaches, the team prepares a recommendation that is put to the ASA Council for adjudication.
The ASA upheld BCAP’s challenge that the Codes had been broken by:
1. use of a dentist in the first commercial
2. the reported recommendation of a dentist in the second commercial and
3. the combined impression created by the two commercials.
The ad was looked at under code clauses 8.1.2 (a) and 8.1.2 (b); click here to read them.
The BACC had argued on the first point that in the opening ad the dentist was merely recommending that the problem of sensitive teeth can be resolved and was not recommending the Sensodyne product or a “specific course of treatment”. The advertiser added that the commercial was a disease awareness campaign to inform consumers of the problem of sensitive teeth, provide a solution and encourage them to visit their dentist for help.
The ASA’s diagnosis
The ASA judged, however, that the use of a dentist to recommend generic toothpastes for sensitive teeth was unacceptable, because the dentist was giving professional advice and a treatment recommendation. The ASA upheld the challenge on the second ad because it, too, featured a reference to the dentist.
On the third challenge, the BACC argued that viewers would not necessarily watch a commercial break from beginning to end or link the messages in the two advertisements. The BACC explained that it had cleared the spots on their merits as stand-alone commercials, which were not necessarily meant to be broadcast together. The ASA considered, however, that viewers who saw both commercials were likely to link the dentist’s advice about sensitive toothpaste in the first commercial with the promotion of Sensodyne in the second and that the spirit of the codes had been broken.
Click here to read the adjudication. [PDF]
ASA gives same treatment to Colgate Sensitive ad
Colgate Palmolive ran a commercial for its sensitive toothpaste and the ad was also picked up by the Monitoring team. That, too, featured a woman explaining that she had talked to her dentist about her sensitive teeth. The woman explained that her dentist had suggested that she should try a “sensitive” toothpaste and a Colgate Sensitive toothpaste tube was shown. She then said she had switched to Colgate Sensitive, adding that her dentist was right because it had really helped.
Colgate Palmolive argued that it had been careful neither to portray the image of a dentist nor to provide a direct endorsement or recommendation for a specific product. The BACC pointed out in response to the investigation that the patient, not the dentist, had chosen the Colgate toothpaste: the dentist had merely recommended a type of product. The ASA, judged, however that, by referring to the dentist’s recommendation, albeit for an unbranded product, the advertisement implied the dentist had recommended a particular form of treatment and, in effect, its ingredients. The ASA concluded that the ad breached clause 8.1.2 (c); click here to read it.
Click here to read the adjudication. [PDF]
The ads broke rules that have been in place for a long while, so no change in policy has occurred. The two adjudications illustrate, however, that a complaint is not required for an ad to be withdrawn; compliance is ensured by a proactive monitoring system in both broadcast and non-broadcast media, Also, the GlaxoSmithKline adjudication demonstrates that the ASA recognises that an audience’s interpretation of an ad can be influenced by another ad.