Background

Summary of Council Decision:

Three issues were investigated of which two were Upheld and one was Not Upheld.

Ad description

A TV ad seen in July 2010 and magazine ads and a promotion seen between October and November 2010 advertised Sensodyne Rapid Relief toothpaste.

a. The TV ad showed people who suffered from sensitive teeth talking about the problems they had eating ice-cream or drinking cold drinks. On-screen text stated "Introducing the new fast acting toothpaste from Sensodyne" and a pack shot of the "Sensodyne Rapid Relief" toothpaste was shown. Beneath the pack on-screen text stated "Clinically proven relief. Works in 60 seconds*". Text at the bottom of the screen stated "When directly applied for one minute. Individual results may vary". The six people with sensitive teeth were shown applying the toothpaste to their teeth; large on-screen text stated "The 60 second test". They then tried the ice-cream or cold drink and stated "It's fine ... it's not giving me any pain ... I'm surprised."

b., c. and d. Three magazine ads featured testimonials from women who used the product and the claim "Sensodyne Rapid Relief ... formulated to provide rapid** and long lasting*** relief from the pain of sensitivity ... Works in 60 seconds." The asterisks were linked to footnotes that stated "**when applied with the finger tip for one minute" and "*** when used twice daily".

e. Another magazine ad was headed "Love hot chocolate again in 60 seconds" and showed a picture of a cup of hot chocolate above a pack shot of the toothpaste. Text stated "It's clinically proven to provide relief from the pain of sensitive teeth. And it works in 60 seconds*". The asterisk was linked to a footnote that stated "*When directly applied with fingertip for one minute".

f. The promotion appeared in women's magazines. The winners of the competition received a session with a life coach. Text in the promotions stated "Sensodyne Rapid Relief ... formulated to provide rapid** and long lasting*** relief from the pain of sensitivity. Clinically proven relief. Works in 60 seconds". The asterisks were linked to footnotes that stated "**when applied with the finger tip for one minute" and "*** when used twice daily".

Issue

Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd, (Colgate) challenged whether the claims:

1. "works in 60 seconds" in ad (a) and

2. "works in 60 seconds" in ads (b), (c), (d), (e) and promotion (f) could be substantiated.

3. Colgate also challenged whether the claim "Rapid ... relief from the pain of sensitive teeth" in ads (b), (c), (d) and promotion (f) could be substantiated.

Response

1., 2. & 3. GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) said two clinical studies had been conducted to support the claims "works in 60 seconds" and "Rapid ... relief from the pain of sensitive teeth", one of which (Mason et al.) had been published in the peer reviewed Journal of Clinical Dentistry and one of which was being prepared for publication. In addition, they provided an independent assessment that asserted the robustness of the Mason et al. study. Mason et al.'s study concluded that their toothpaste provided significant reductions in dentin hyper-sensitivity immediately after topical application and after three-day brushing.

Clearcast said they had been sent the two studies and had passed that information to their consultant, who had reviewed them before they approved the claim for broadcast. They said they had told the advertiser to include the on-screen text "Individual results may vary" due to the variance in recorded scores for the different tooth sensitivity tests.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA reviewed the evidence. We noted the Mason et al. review concluded that the Sensodyne toothpaste provided significant reductions in tooth sensitivity immediately after topical application and after three days of regular brushing. We noted Clearcast's consultant had reviewed those papers before the ad had been cleared and pointed out the variance in recorded scores for tooth sensitivity tests, both after immediate topical application and after three days of regular brushing. The on-screen text "Individual results may vary" had been included as a result.

We noted there were three tooth sensitivity tests in the Mason et al. review, including one test where the patient assessed the reduction in tooth sensitivity themselves. In that test, patients reported an immediate reduction in tooth sensitivity within a range from the baseline. That meant for some patients the reduction in sensitively was significantly greater than for others. Similar variations were recorded in the other tests both after immediate topical application and after three days of regular brushing. We agreed with Clearcast that the on-screen text "Individual results may vary" was necessary to explain that consumers would experience different levels of reduction in tooth sensitivity if they used the product in the way shown in the ad.

Because the TV ad included the on-screen text "individual results may vary", and because the studies sent showed the product reduced dentine sensitivity in the trial participants after 60 seconds topical application (albeit with differing degrees of perceptibility), we concluded the claim "works in 60 seconds" had been substantiated.

On this point we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation), 3.12 (Exaggeration) and 11.4 (Medicines, medical devices health-related products and beauty products) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted ads (b), (c), (d), (e) and promotion (f) also claimed the product worked in 60 seconds. Again, we acknowledged that the evidence sent showed the product reduced dentine sensitivity after topical application for 60 seconds in the trial participants. However, because the extent to which the product reduced sensitivity varied significantly amongst the participants, we considered the ads should make clear that individual results would vary. Because the ads did not make that clear, we considered they implied the same level of efficacy for all consumers. Because that was not the case, we concluded the ads were misleading.

On this point ads (b), (c) (d), (e) and (f) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices health-related products and beauty products).

3. Upheld

We noted ads (b), (c), (d), (e) and promotion (f) claimed the product could provide "Rapid ... relief from the pain of sensitive teeth". As with the claim "works in 60 seconds", we considered the ad should make clear that individual results might vary. Because the ads did not make that clear, we concluded the ads implied the same level of efficacy for all consumers. Because that was not the case, we concluded that the ads were misleading.

On this point ads (b), (c) (d), (e) and promotion (f) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices health-related products and beauty products).

Action

No further action necessary in respect of ad (a). Ads (b), (c) (d), (e) and promotion (f) must not appear again in their current form.


More on