Background
Summary of Council Decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for Ariel’s ‘The Big One’ laundry pods, seen on 24 April 2025, featured a man standing in a supermarket aisle, holding a shopping list whilst looking confusedly at a large number of products labelled ‘laundry additives’. A voice-over stated, “Pre-treat, pre-soak, post-soak. When did getting your clothes clean become such hard work? All that scrubbing and lemons and those extra products, really? But there's another way. The Big One, new from Ariel, has built-in pre-treat for double-stain and odour removal. So, it's just one and you're done. Where's the hard work in that? The Big One, new from Ariel”. He held up a box of The Big One pods, which had text on the product packaging stating “2X Stain and Odour Removal”. Further on-screen text stated, “Built in-pre-treat”. He was seen putting a pod in a washing machine along with clothes, before holding up a clean white shirt. The man from the first scene was then seen purchasing a large number of laundry related products whilst appearing to look distressed. On-screen text stated, “One Ariel The Big One has the same stain and odour removal power as two Ariel 3 in1 Pods”.
Issue
Reckitt, who understood the product was less effective at cleaning clothes than when used in combination with one or more laundry additives, challenged whether the:
-
claim “just one, and you’re done” was misleading; and
-
ad included a comparison with an identifiable competitor that was not verifiable.
Response
1. & 2. Procter & Gamble UK t/a Ariel said the purpose of the ad was to highlight the convenience for consumers in using The Big One product versus having to use a variety of cleaning products to wash clothes effectively. They said the ad highlighted the advantages of The Big One against their own product, Ariel 3 in 1 Pods. They said they had conducted a survey, which found that consumers had become increasingly concerned that doing their laundry had become a complicated task. They said the ad did not intend to make comparative claims against competitor brands. They did not believe consumers would understand the ad to mean that the product was more efficacious than using a laundry detergent in combination with laundry additives.
Ariel said the claim “there’s another way”, which followed the scene of the man looking confused in the supermarket, reinforced the impression that the product was positioned as a more convenient product to wash clothes, rather than it being more effective than competitor products. More generally, they believed the ad clearly implied that the product offered an ‘alternative laundry experience’, in that it was convenient because only one ‘pod’ was used, whilst still being effective.
They said the only comparison made was against their own product, with a disclaimer stating, “One Ariel The Big One has the same stain and odour removal power as two Ariel 3 in1 Pods”. They said that comparison was demonstrated by the scene featuring the image of the product because that claim was written and clearly visible on the packaging. They said testing had been conducted to measure the performance of the product against two Ariel 3 in 1 pods, which showed a parity in performance.
Additionally, Ariel said the product was tested on a variety of stains across three different fabric types, with results showing a complete removal of approximately 89% of those stains in the first wash. They believed that was a high level of efficacy, which further illustrated that the product was effective in cleaning clothes in a manner which supported the claim “it’s just one and you’re done”.
Because Ariel said they had not made a comparison with an identifiable competitor, they believed they were not required to verify the efficacy of their product against other brands. They did however, provide data from a report which compared the efficacy of the product against another biological soluble usage dose (SUD) laundry detergent, Persil 3 in 1 Bio Capsules. That detergent was tested in combination with a Vanish laundry powder additive, and then separately with a Vanish spray additive. They also tested their own brand Ariel Original Pods in combination with the same two Vanish laundry additives. Those two detergent brands accounted for 41% of the SUD laundry detergents sold in the UK and said they held data which showed both products had a comparable performance against at least 71% of the entire market. Because they did not believe the ad included a comparison with competitors, Ariel said they had not conducted testing against the entire market. However, they believed the report’s data showed The Big One was as effective as three out of four of the combinations of laundry detergent and additive tested.
Clearcast said the ad did not directly compare the performance of The Big One to competitor products. They therefore believed there was no claim or suggestion that the cleaning performance of the product would match or outperform the efficacy of different brands’ products. They said that, in the opening scene, there was no implication that the alternative products on the shelf were ineffective. They believed it was clear that the message being conveyed was that there were many options for consumers, which made it difficult to know what they should purchase.
They said Ariel had provided evidence which confirmed The Big One product consisted of a four-compartment pod containing multiple gels, including a number of pre-treaters, stain removers,
brighteners and similar surfactants. They were satisfied that Ariel had provided evidence which demonstrated the product was effective enough to only require the use of one pod for a sufficient laundry wash.
Clearcast did not believe a comparison with an identifiable competitor had been made, meaning Ariel did not need to verify the effectiveness of their product versus competitors. They said the only comparison made was against Ariel’s own 3 in1 Pod product, which was clearly stated in on-screen text.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would have been aware that a laundry ‘additive’ was a product added to the laundry routine, along with the main detergent, to enhance cleaning performance. The ad began with a man in a supermarket looking at a large number of different products labelled “laundry additives”, whilst a voice-over stated, “Pre-treat, pre-soak, post-soak, when did getting your clothes clean become such hard work”. The ad then featured a woman struggling to forcefully scrub stains out of a shirt, whilst the voice-over stated, “But there’s another way”. In addition, the voice-over claimed, “The Big One, new from Ariel, has built-in pre-treat for double-stain and odour removal”.
We considered consumers would understand that sequence of events to mean that finding the ‘best’ product to efficiently clean your clothes was difficult, but that The Big One was a new, improved alternative compared to using a laundry detergent alongside any laundry additive found in supermarkets. We considered that impression was reinforced by the claim “just one and you're done”, whilst a noticeably clean white shirt was held up. We considered that would have led consumers to believe The Big One was as effective, and obtained at least the same results, as any laundry detergent in combination with any one of the large number of additive products that the supermarket scene suggested was on the market.
We acknowledged Ariel’s and Clearcast’s view that consumers would have interpreted the ad to be a commentary on the perceived complexity and variety of washing related products, and that The Big One was a convenient product to clean clothes to a suitable standard. More specifically, we acknowledged their view on how consumers would interpret the beginning and end scenes, in which the man appeared to be overwhelmed by the sheer number of washing products, as well as their interpretation of the claim “When did getting your clothes clean become such hard work? All that scrubbing and lemons and those extra products, really?”.
Based on those scenes, we accepted the view that some consumers would have understood that the product had been positioned as a convenient alternative to other products. However, we considered that was in addition to, not in place of, the impression that the product was also as effective as any laundry detergent in combination with any additive. We therefore considered consumers would have believed the ad was commenting on both the efficacy and convenience of The Big One, because it was easy and simple to use whilst achieving the same results as laundry detergent in combination with any additive.
In addition to featuring an image of the product, the ad included on-screen text which stated, “One Ariel The Big One has the same stain and odour removal power as two Ariel 3 in1 Pods”, which was a comparison specifically against another Ariel product. Whilst we acknowledged that Ariel had made a direct comparison on efficacy against their own product, which was the only explicitly verbalised and written comparison, we again considered that did not override the overall impression that the product was as effective as a detergent in combination with any additive. Rather, we considered large text on the product box reading “2X Stain and Odour Removal”, which was repeated by the voice-over in a similar manner when stating, “[…] for double stain and Odour Removal” placed a large emphasis on the positive efficacy of the product in general terms, rather than its convenience.
In that context, we considered the claim “just one, and you’re done” had the effect of implying the product was as effective at cleaning clothes as all other laundry detergent when used in combination with one or more laundry additives. That meant the ad included a comparison claim against other laundry products. We therefore expected to see objective evidence which substantiated that claim.
Ariel provided evidence which showed The Big One was as effective at removing stains as two Ariel 3 in 1 Pods. They also provided data which compared the efficacy of the product against a competitor SUD laundry detergent, Persil 3 in 1 Bio Capsules, in combination with two versions of a Vanish laundry additive. Because we considered that consumers would understand the ad to mean that The Big One was as effective as all other laundry detergents regularly found in supermarkets, in combination with any one of a variety of additives, we did not consider comparative data against only one competitor detergent product was sufficient. For the same reason, we also considered that data on two versions of only one competitor additive product was not sufficient. We therefore considered that the data was not sufficiently robust to substantiate the comparative claim which consumers would have understood the ad to have made. In the absence of data to demonstrate that The Big One had the same efficacy as a comprehensive number of competitor products, we concluded that the claim “just one and you’re done”, which would be understood in this context as a comparative claim, was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) 3.9 (Substantiation), 3.12 (Exaggeration) and 3.34 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. Upheld
The BCAP Code required comparisons with identifiable competitors to be verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct a consumer to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate.
For the reasons outlined above, we considered that the ad had made a comparison against laundry detergents in combination with additives from competitor brands.
The ad did not provide any information to ensure consumers could verify the comparative claim made on the efficacy of the product against competitor brands, nor did it include an adequate signpost to information that formed the basis of the comparison. For those reasons, we considered that the ad had not provided consumers with information to verify the comparison made.
Because the ad did not provide sufficient information to allow consumers to verify the comparative claim, we concluded that it was misleading and breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rule 3.36 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Procter & Gamble UK t/a Ariel not to imply their product was as effective at cleaning clothes as other products, or when used in combination with laundry additives, if they did not hold evidence to substantiate the claim. We also told them to ensure such claims were verifiable.
