Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A leaflet for Harvey Water Softeners, seen in March 2019, included under the heading “7 WONDERS OF HARVEY WATER” the claims “GLOSSIER HAIR Keeps your hair shiny with fewer shampoos and conditioners” and “SOFTER SKIN Softened water leaves your skin feeling soft and healthy”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “GLOSSIER HAIR”; and
2. “SOFTER SKIN”.
Response
1. & 2. Harvey Water Softeners Ltd said that their water softener led to glossier hair and softer skin and provided market research and scientific studies to substantiate the claims in the ad. Their market research comprised of surveys sent to customers who had purchased Harvey Water Softeners products and included the questions “Thinking back, what is the most annoying thing about hard water in your home” and “Which benefits of softened water have you noticed at home?” to which they received 2,500 responses. They said that they also received separate written responses that quoted improved skin condition as a result of having a water softener installed.
Harvey Water Softeners further provided a study which measured the effect that different water hardness had on human hair. The study’s pilot study analysed the effect of residential water hardness and hair condition. They highlighted a section of the study’s conclusion that said there was a clear correlation between the condition of the hair and its water hardness metal content. The section further stated that strong conclusions could not be made for comparisons between hard and very hard water groups due to the small sample size but that the trend agreed with the study’s laboratory findings, that significant differences in the metal content of hair was evident only when comparing water with and without hardness ions. The study found that about half of the study’s subjects in each water hardness group perceived an effect of the water on their hair. Harvey Water Softeners also provided a study on the effects of water hardness on skin, with a particular focus on patients with atopic dermatitis. They said it showed that hard water made rinsing skin-irritants in washing products from skin more difficult and left a residue, which caused dryness. The study was commissioned by Harvey Water Softeners and made use of their products. It included 80 participants, including healthy control subjects and subjects with atopic dermatitis with and without FLG mutations (a gene mutation which made it more likely that a person would develop atopic dermatitis), split into two treatment and two control groups. The skin of each participant was washed in water of varying hardness levels and chlorine concentrations, rinsed and covered to determine the effects of the residues in hard water on the skin. The study found that areas of skin washed with hard water had significantly increased sodium lauryl sulfate deposits, which increased skin dryness and caused irritation, particularly in patients with atopic dermatitis. The study observed that water softening using Harvey Water Softeners products mitigated some of the negative effects of hard water and hypothesised that installing a water softener in early life may be able to prevent atopic dermatitis development, though recommended further studies to test that.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “glossier hair” to mean that consumers who had installed the advertised water softener from Harvey Water Softeners and washed using the softened water would experience hair that appeared glossier. Harvey Water Softeners highlighted a conclusion drawn from a pilot study which assessed the effect of water hardness on hair condition. The testing found that, for participants who lived in a hard water area, there was a statistically significant relationship between greater metal content and poorer hair condition. However, the study did not use water which had been softened by a Harvey Water Softeners product and did not measure the effect that such a product had.
The pilot study also included a questionnaire to understand the participants’ perception of their residential water on their hair. We considered, however, that the questionnaire did not indicate that participants perceived glossier hair specifically as a positive effect of soft water.
We considered that while the study may have shown a statistical relationship between water hardness and hair condition, it did not show that soft water from a Harvey Water Softeners product would lead to hair which would appear glossier to consumers. We further noted that study was a PhD thesis and had not been peer-reviewed. For those reasons, we considered it was not adequate to support the claim.
The customer survey that Harvey Water Softeners provided showed 2,500 responses, of which roughly a quarter said glossier hair was a benefit of using softened water. However, we considered that subjective responses to a questionnaire did not constitute adequate evidence for the effects of softened water. In any case, a relatively low proportion of respondents indicated that they believed glossier hair was a benefit of softened water. We therefore considered the survey was not adequate to support the claim. Because the study did not conclude that the presence of hard water would result in hair that appeared glossier, and the supporting survey was not adequate to support the claim either, we concluded that the claim “glossier hair” had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached 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).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “softer skin” to mean that consumers who used Harvey Water Softeners to soften water and who washed in that water would experience skin that felt softer. The customer survey that Harvey Water provided showed that of the 2,500 responses, just over half said that softer skin was a benefit of using softened water.
We again considered subjective responses to a questionnaire did not constitute adequate evidence for the effects of softened water. In any case, we considered that this was an insufficient level of response to conclude in a wider population that softer skin was a benefit of softened water. We therefore considered the survey was not adequate to support the claims by itself. We understood the case-control study was designed to investigate the effect hard water had on individuals with and without a predisposition to skin barrier impairment, with particular regard to the way hard water affected exposure to chemicals in wash products. The study measured the effects of exposing four groups to hard and soft water over nine months. Soft water used in the study had been softened using a Harvey Water Softeners product.
The groups consisted of control subjects and atopic dermatitis patients with and without a gene mutation which cased skin barrier impairment. We therefore considered the effect of softened water was tested on a very limited spectrum of skin types, which was unlikely to represent the range of consumers within the ad’s audience. The test did not conclude that skin would feel measurably softer, did not articulate how that could be measured or quantified and did not report its participants stating that their skin felt softer after using softened water. We therefore considered that the study did not substantiate the claims in the ad that a Harvey Water Softeners product would cause consumers’ skin to feel softer. Because we considered that the neither the study nor the survey substantiated the claim “softer skin”, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Harvey Water Softeners Ltd not to claim that its product would result in glossier hair or softer skin unless they held adequate evidence to support those claims.
