Background
Summary of Council decision
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad and a web page, seen in March and June 2017, promoted a toothpaste and toothbrush.
a. The TV ad featured several women wearing all white clothing along with shots of the products. A voice-over stated, “Have you got it? Colgate Expert White, the only toothpaste with a professional whitening ingredient. It helps remove deeper set stains and is professionally designed to reverse years of yellowing. It is the breakthrough in whitening you’ll want to share. Colgate Expert White. And here’s another beauty secret. Max White toothbrush plus whitening pen. Just brush, whiten and go. Up to 3 shades whiter. Have you got it?”. On-screen text stated “With twice daily use for 3 weeks”.
b. A web page describing Expert White toothpaste on www.colgate.co.uk stated “Whiter teeth in 5 days”. A web page describing the Max White toothbrush with whitening pen stated, “Up to 3 shades whiter teeth*”. Small print further down the page stated, “*with continued use as directed for 3 weeks”.
Issue
The ASA received three complaints:
Three complainants challenged whether the claim “up to 3 shades whiter” in ads
1. (a) and
2. (b)
was misleading and could be substantiated.
3. One complainant challenged whether the claim “whiter teeth in 5 days” in ad (b) was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. & 2. Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd (Colgate) said that the Colgate Max White Expert White 360° toothbrush and whitening pen included a toothbrush that helped to mechanically remove surface stains, along with a whitening pen containing hydrogen peroxide, which helped chemically to reduce stains. They provided a clinical study that compared the change in tooth shade (measured against a standard shade guide used by dental professionals) after two weeks for participants using the Max White toothbrush and pen, and a control group. Colgate believed that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the claim.
Clearcast said that the study referred to by Colgate had been reviewed by their dental consultant, who assessed it as having a robust design and methodology. They considered that the study was sufficient to support the claim.
3. Colgate said that the accumulation of stains from the daily consumption of foods and drinks and the ingestion of other products could lead to a yellowing of the teeth. The Expert White toothpaste contained hydrogen peroxide to remove stains embedded in the teeth, as well as an abrasive to remove surface stains and a phosphate salt to help prevent and loosen stains. They provided a clinical study that compared extrinsic tooth staining reduction over five days for participants using Expert White toothpaste and a control group using non-whitening toothpaste. They also provided the results of a consumer perception survey. Colgate believed that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the claim.
Assessment
1. & 2. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “up to 3 shades whiter”, in conjunction with the qualification “With twice daily use for 3 weeks” to mean that a significant number of users of the product would achieve three shades of change in their tooth colour on an incremental scale after three weeks of use. We assessed the clinical study provided by Colgate.
The study was randomised and double-blinded, with participants divided into two groups. Participants’ tooth shade was assessed using a 16-point scale. All participants selected for the study had an average tooth shade in the darker half of the scale across their six maxillary anterior (upper front) teeth. There were no significant differences in average tooth shade between the two groups at baseline. One group was instructed to brush their teeth twice a day with a non-whitening toothpaste and the Max White toothbrush, and then use the Max White whitening pen to apply the whitening gel to their teeth. The second group used a soft manual toothbrush to brush their teeth with the same non-whitening toothpaste twice a day, and then applied a non-whitening placebo gel. Tooth shade was measured at baseline and again after intervals of 7 and 14 days. After 14 days, the test group saw a statistically-significant median tooth shade rank score improvement of three shades relative to the control group, indicating that a significant proportion of participants had seen an improvement of three shades or more. Furthermore, around 95% of all participants achieved an improvement compared to baseline within the same period. We considered the data provided was sufficient to demonstrate that a significant number of users had achieved at least three shades of colour change. We concluded that the claim “up to 3 shades whiter” had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point, ad (a) was investigated under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Substantiation), but was not found in breach. Ad (b) was investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but was not found in breach.
3. Not upheld
We considered that consumers would understand “whiter teeth in 5 days” to mean that their teeth would be perceptibly whiter after 5 days of using the product. We assessed the clinical study provided by Colgate.
We noted that the randomised, double-blinded study compared the reduction in extrinsic (surface) tooth staining for a group using Expert White toothpaste and a group using a non-whitening toothpaste. Both groups were instructed to brush twice daily with their assigned toothpaste over a 5-day period. The level of staining was quantified using a 4-point composite scale that combined average scores for both intensity and area of staining. All participants had a score of 1 or above at baseline. There were no significant differences in average tooth shade between the two groups at baseline. After 5 days, the results showed a statistically-significant mean score reduction of 13.5% for the Expert White group compared to baseline, and a statistically-significant score mean reduction of 12.5% for the Expert White group compared to the control group.
We noted that the consumer perception results indicated that a significant number of 155 respondents had noticed that their teeth were whiter after using the product for 4 to 6 days. We considered that these results supported the results of the clinical study and suggested that the changes observed within it would be perceptible to consumers as a whitening effect on their teeth. Overall, we concluded that the claim “whiter teeth in 5 days” had been substantiated and therefore was not misleading.
On this point, ad (b) was investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but was not found in breach.
Action
No further action required.
