Ad description
A TV ad and video ad on the Nivea UK YouTube channel, seen in April 2016, promoted Nivea Protect & Care antiperspirant:
a. The TV ad featured a voice-over that stated, “On one side you want strong deodorant protection that lasts all day long. On the other side, you want that soft skin feel. Now you can have both, with the care of Nivea”. On-screen text stated “48 hour protection” and “soft on skin”. A tin of Nivea Crème was shown rolling toward and merging with a generic aerosol canister, which changed to take on the branding of Nivea Protect & Care antiperspirant.
b. The YouTube ad was identical to ad (a).
Issue
Unilever UK Ltd, who believed that the ads implied that Nivea Protect & Care antiperspirant contained the same or similar ingredients to Nivea Crème, and therefore had similar skin care properties, challenged whether the ad was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Beiersdorf UK Ltd said that 10 of the 16 ingredients contained within Nivea Protect & Care antiperspirant were well known for their caring and/or skin conditioning properties. These included octyldodecanol, glycerine and panthenol, which were also contained within Nivea Crème. They provided entries on each of the listed ingredients from the Personal Care Products Council online database, which they said demonstrated that their caring and skin conditioning functions were well established. They also provided details of other Nivea moisturising products which included some of the same ingredients.
They said that the ad did not set out to demonstrate or imply that Nivea Protect & Care antiperspirant had the same skin care ingredients and properties as Nivea Crème, and they did not believe that consumers would interpret it that way. There was nothing in the ad to imply that all of the skin care ingredients of Nivea Crème (or the cream itself) were contained within the product, nor that its overall skincare properties were the same as those of Nivea Crème. They stated that the imagery of the tin merging with the antiperspirant can was a dramatisation used to emphasise some of the properties of the product featured in the ad. They believed that the average consumer would be familiar with metaphorical and symbolic depictions in ads, and would not understand that the cream had literally been combined with the antiperspirant. Given the fantastical nature of the imagery, they believed that consumers would understand it as implying that the product was primarily an antiperspirant but also included some of the moisturising and skin conditioning ingredients of skin care products, with the result that the skin was left feeling soft.
Beiersdorf provided a clinical evaluation report in which 32 people were asked to respond to statements about the product. They said this substantiated the claim that the product left the skin feeling soft. They said that the text stating “84% of 167 women agreed” that appeared in the ad referred to a different study and was included in support of the claims “soft skin feel” and “soft on skin”. They provided a summary of the results of that study.
Clearcast said that they interpreted the ad to mean that Nivea Protect & Care antiperspirant contained ingredients that would provide a comparable effect to a Nivea Crème product. Their consultant had confirmed that the product contained ingredients that would have a moisturising or softening effect on the skin. They therefore believed that the ad was not misleading.
Assessment
Not upheld
The voice-over stated, “On one side you want strong deodorant protection that lasts all day long. On the other side, you want that soft skin feel. Now you can have both, with the care of Nivea”, as a tin of Nivea Crème was shown merging with an aerosol canister. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand, from the combination of the wording and the image, that the product would have an effect on the look and feel of their skin that was similar to that of a moisturising cream such as Nivea Crème. Consumers were likely to appreciate that the composition of an aerosol antiperspirant spray would differ significantly from that of a moisturising cream due to the nature of its use and application. Therefore, we considered that they were unlikely to understand that the product literally contained Nivea Crème and that they would view the visual combination of the two products as an illustration of the skin-conditioning properties exhibited by Nivea Protect & Care in addition to its antiperspirant and deodorant function.
We noted that the product contained a range of ingredients that were used for their skin conditioning and/or caring properties, three of which were also contained in Nivea Crème. We assessed the clinical evaluation report submitted by Beiersdorf. The subjects had self-graded their skin condition, smoothness, and softness both before application and immediately after application of the product. The mean ratings for each of these factors increased after use of the product. The 32 participants also responded to various efficacy statements about the product. We noted that 94% of the participants agreed with the statement “The product cares for my skin in the armpit” and 90% agreed with “The product leaves my skin feeling soft in the armpit”. While we had not seen a full copy of the larger study referenced in the ad, we noted that the summary of the results showed a high level of consumer acceptance for various claims related to the skin softening and caring effect of the product, and considered that this supported the findings of the first study.
We considered that Beiersdorf had demonstrated that Nivea Protect & Care antiperspirant contained ingredients with softening or caring properties and that the study participants found it had a positive, perceivable effect on the condition of their skin. This supported the impression that consumers were likely to take away from the ad, namely that the product had softening and caring properties similar to those of a moisturising cream. We therefore considered that the claim had been substantiated and the ad was not misleading.
We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach. We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) and did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
