Ad description

A TV ad promoted Finish dishwasher cleaner and featured Carol Smillie interviewing Dr Lisa Ackerley, who was described as an expert in household hygiene. Carol asked, "Lisa, how important is it that we clean our dishwashers?" Dr Ackerley stated, "It's really important to clean your dishwasher because if your dishwasher isn't clean, then how can you be sure that your plates and cutlery are clean?" She then showed a jug full of brown sludge and said, "This is the sort of stuff that can actually build up in parts that you can't see", before revealing a further 15 jugs, also full of brown sludge, and continuing, "And there's this much that goes through your dishwasher in its lifetime". Carol then asked, "What should you do?" Dr Ackerley said, "I recommend using Finish dishwasher cleaner and that's what I use. I was absolutely astonished at how good it was." As an animation of dirty internal dishwasher pipes being cleaned by the product appeared on screen she continued, "Just look at the difference it can make to the inside of your dishwasher."

Issue

The complainant, who believed that the ad exaggerated the amount of dirt that would build up in a dishwasher if the cleaning product was not used, challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that a dishwasher would be less effective at cleaning a load if the product was not used.

Response

RB UK Commercial Ltd highlighted that Dr Ackerley said, "This is the sort of stuff that can actually build up…", and that she did not state or imply that that was the volume of soil that would build up at any one time. In addition, when referring to the 15 jugs, she made clear that that was the volume that went through a dishwasher "…in its lifetime". Therefore, they thought viewers would understand that the jugs represented the volume that could pass through a dishwasher in its lifetime, not the amount that would necessarily build up in one machine. They said they had provided evidence to Clearcast which showed the volume of soil that typically passed through a machine.

They said dishwashers had multiple nooks and crannies such as the sump, filter system and internal pipework to the spray heads that accumulated limescale, dirt and grease. They said, as with most machines where water was heated and circulated, limescale would build up through frequent use. They said that happened irrespective of the cleaning chemicals in use because they were not present in all cycles of the process. Limescale deposits created a rough surface compared to the relatively smooth surfaces of the internal casing of the machine which food and grease could adhere to. In areas out of view, such as the sump, pipes, filters and so forth, the surfaces were not stainless steel nor as smooth, so limescale could accumulate more rapidly. The build-up of limescale, food and grease could impact upon the heating performance of the machine and, if the jets became partially blocked, reduce its ability to force water through them, thus reducing the water flow and pressure. Limescale and residue particles could also block the filters and reduce their performance. They held data which showed that 96% of Electrolux Dishwasher Service engineers stated that in their experience "grease and limescale build-ups" affected the cleaning performance of a machine. They also provided a selection of images to demonstrate how dirty dishwasher components became during every day, normal consumer use.

RB said the dishwasher cleaner was a two-part product with a unique dual-action formula which, when used regularly, removed grease and limescale build-up from the vital parts of the dishwasher. They said they had provided evidence to Clearcast to demonstrate the product's efficacy. They also supplied an extract from a study they had conducted regarding consumers' perceptions of the efficacy of dishwasher cleaners which they believed demonstrated that the product improved a dishwasher's cleaning capability.

Clearcast said they agreed with RB's response. They said RB had provided data at script stage which had been reviewed by their consultant, who was content, and they had therefore approved the ad. They provided a selection of data and test results, submitted by RB, which they believed substantiated the claim that 15 kg of food passed through a dishwasher over its lifetime and showed that the product removed grease and limescale.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that when conversing with Carol Smillie, Dr Ackerley lifted a jug of brown sludge and said, "This is the sort of stuff that can actually build up in parts that you can't see …", and then showed a number of additional jugs while stating "There's this much that goes through your dishwasher in its lifetime". We considered that consumers would understand that the 15 jugs served to represent the volume of grease, dirt and food that could pass through a machine in its lifetime, not the volume that would build up in their machine if they didn't use a cleaning product. While we noted the ad did not state the precise volume that passed through a dishwasher, the study provided indicated that the typical volume of food residue that passed through a machine in its lifetime was 15 kg and on that basis, we were satisfied that the ad did not exaggerate the volume of soil that passed through the average dishwasher. We also understood that limescale frequently built up in dishwashers, particularly areas that were not visible, and could lead to the build-up of grease and food particles, which in turn could negatively impact upon performance.

We considered that the overall impression of the ad was that, in the absence of a cleaning product, grease and food could build up in a dishwasher and adversely affect its ability to clean, but that by using a product, such as Finish dishwasher cleaner, limescale, dirt and grease could be reduced and cleaning performance enhanced. We reviewed the data provided by Clearcast in relation to the product's effect on grease and limescale. For the first test, enamel plates were soiled to replicate grease build-ups and then put in an oven to burn on and toughen the grease. The plates were then washed in a dishwasher through one cycle using competitor products and Finish dishwasher cleaner. The effectiveness of the products was established by weighing how much grease had been removed and the results suggested that Finish dishwasher cleaner removed grease more effectively than the competitor products. The second test involved placing small marble stone cubes, that had been demineralised, into a selection of liquid cleaners, including Finish cleaner. The loss in weight was measured after set time periods and expressed as a percentage of the initial weight. The results provided appeared to show that the Finish dishwasher cleaner eliminated more limescale (marble) than the competitor products after 30 minutes. While we acknowledged that the results provided for both tests demonstrated that the product could remove grease and limescale, we noted that we had not been given the full studies, including information regarding the number of tests conducted per product or the results achieved in each individual test carried out. Further, we noted that neither study measured the product's performance when used in "real-world" conditions over multiple washes. Also, we had not seen any comparative data showing the performance of dishwashers when the Finish cleaning product was used, versus their performance when no cleaning product was used, including accelerated testing to show the impact of the product when regularly used over a prolonged period of time. In addition, while we acknowledged that RB had also supplied test data which indicated that consumers' believed that use of the product enhanced their dishwasher's cleaning capability, we did not consider that, on its own, a study measuring consumers' perceptions of how well a product worked constituted evidence of its efficacy. Therefore, because we considered that viewers would interpret the ad to mean that a dishwasher would clean a load more effectively when a consumer used Finish dishwasher cleaner, as opposed to no cleaning product, and we had not seen sufficient evidence to confirm that this was the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached 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).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told RB UK Commercial Ltd to ensure they held adequate evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of their products, including testing that reflected real-world conditions where relevant, in future.

BCAP Code

3.1     3.12     3.9    


More on