Advertising Standards

Authority
What is the ASAs mission statement?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the UKs independent advertising regulator. The ASA makes sure
ads across UK media stick to the advertising rules (the Advertising Codes).
The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) is the sister organisation of the ASA and is responsible for writing
the Advertising Codes. The ASA and CAP are committed to regulating in a way that is transparent,
proportionate, targeted, evidence-based, consistent and accountable.
What does the ASA take action do?
We respond to concerns and complaints from consumers and businesses and take action to ban ads which are
misleading, harmful, offensive or irresponsible. As well as responding to complaints we monitor ads to check
theyre following the rules. We also conduct research to test public opinion and identify where we need to take
action to protect consumers.
How does regulating advertisements work?
Ads in the UK are regulated through a system of self-regulation and co-regulation. In summary, self-regulation
means that the work we do is funded by the advertising industry.
Self-regulation means that the ad industry also writes the rules (through CAP) that advertisers have to stick to.
Non-broadcast advertising, including newspapers, posters, websites, social media, cinema, emails, leaflets,
billboard, is covered by self-regulation.
Co-regulation is an arrangement the ASA have with the communications regulator, Ofcom. It has given us
responsibility (a contract) on a day-to-day basis to regulate TV and radio advertising. In 2014, Ofcom announced
the renewal of its co-regulatory relationship with the ASA for another ten years.
The ASA respond to complaints but we also check ads across media to make sure theyre sticking to the rules. We
monitor ads in sectors where there are potential consumer protection issues or where there are societal concerns
about specific products, for instance age-restricted products like alcohol, gambling or electronic cigarettes.
Together with CAP, the ASA works to support the industry to help them get their ads right before they are
published. For example by providing guidance, pre-publication advice and training for the industry. Last year, we
provided million pieces of advice and training for the industry, most of which was free of charge.
What sanctions can the ASA impose?
The Advertising Codes and the ASAs rulings have universal coverage across the advertising industry. Advertisers
cannot opt out of them.
If we have judged an ad has broken the advertising rules, then it must be withdrawn or amended. The vast
majority of advertisers stick to the ASAs rulings and they act quickly to amend or withdraw an ad that breaks
the Codes.
We have a range of sanctions to act against the small number of advertisers who are either unwilling or unable
to work within the rules and to ensure they are brought into line. In 2013 Trading Standards took over from the
Office of Fair Trading as the ASAs legal backstop on the non-broadcast side. On the broadcast side, Ofcom
acts as our legal backstop.
What are the overarching principles of this
code?
The overarching principles of this Code are that advertisements should not mislead or cause serious or
widespread offence or harm, especially to children or the vulnerable. Broadcasters are responsible for ensuring
that the advertisements they transmit comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Code. All compliance
matters (copy clearance, content, scheduling and the like) are the ultimate responsibility of each broadcaster.
The ASA may decline to investigate where there is a dispute which, in its view, would be better resolved by
another regulator or through the Courts.
What are advertisers responsible for?
Broadcasters should use the ASA or CAP website, www.asa.org.uk and www.cap.org.uk, to
inform themselves of recent ASA rulings, the latest text of the Code and BCAP guidance on the
Code.
Broadcasters must ensure that all advertisements are cleared before broadcast, are scheduled
suitably and in accordance with BCAP's rules on scheduling of advertisements (Section 32:
Scheduling). BCAP strongly advises broadcasters to follow relevant Clearcast or Radiocentre
scheduling warnings, although compliance with them is not necessarily a guarantee of
compliance with the BCAP Code.
Broadcasters must ensure that previously approved copy is not re-run for subsequent
campaigns without periodic checks to ensure that all claims are still accurate. For radio, copy
originally cleared by Radiocentre that is over six months old will need to be re-submitted for
consideration by Radiocentre and assigned a new clearance number. Broadcasters or their
respective clearance body must independently assess evidence submitted in support of an
advertisement and any advice they have commissioned. Substantiation of factual claims made
by advertisers and other supporting evidence must be held by the broadcaster or the relevant
clearance body.
What are the four basic rules of the code?
1.1
Advertisements must reflect the spirit, not merely the letter, of the Code.
1.2
Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to
society.
1.3
Advertisements must comply with the law and broadcasters must make that a
condition of acceptance.
1.3.1
Advertisements must not state or imply that a product can legally be sold if it cannot.
Misleading Advertising
3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2 Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by
hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether
or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to
mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is
constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to
consumers by other means.
3.5 Subjective claims must not mislead the audience; advertisements must not imply that expressions of
opinion are objective claims.
3.4 Obvious exaggerations ("puffery") and claims that the average consumer who sees the advertisement is
unlikely to take literally are allowed provided they do not materially mislead.
- These rules apply to my advert as the deodorant should clearly express what it does
Harm and Offence
Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral
or social harm to persons under the age of 18.
Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against
generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.
Advertisements must not exploit the special trust that persons under the age
of 18 place in parents, guardians, teachers or other persons.
Advertisements must not include the material that is likely to condone or
encourage prejudices health or safety
Children
Advertisements must not condone, encourage or unreasonably
feature behaviour that could be dangerous for children to emulate.
Advertisements must not implicitly or explicitly discredit established
safety guidelines.
Advertisements must not condone, encourage or feature children
going off alone or with strangers
This rule is not intended to prevent advertisements that inform
children about dangers and risks associated with potentially harmful
behaviour.
Privacy
Television only - With limited exceptions, living person must not be featured,
caricatured or referred to in advertisements without there permission.
Exceptions are made only for brief and incidental appearances,such as crowd
scenes, and advertisements that refer to a person featured in publications,
programmes, films and the like, providing that the reference to or portrayal of
that person is neither offensive nor defamatory.
Environmental Claims
Advertisements must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a
significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists
If a product or service has never had a demonstrably adverse effect on the
environment, advertisements must not imply that the formulation has
changed to improve the product or service in the way claimed. Advertisements
may, however, claim that a product or service has always been designed in a
way that omits an ingredient or process known to harm the environment.
Scheduling
Broadcasters must take special care when scheduling advertisements that
might be unsuitable for children or young person or the audience of religious
programmes or for broadcast around sensitive programming or news items
Particular sensitivity is required for advertisements inserted in or around news
or current affairs programmes in which a news item, especially one of a tragic
nature could completely transform the context in which an advertisement
having inapparent connection with it could be perceived by viewers or
listeners. A separation from new references might be inadequate and
suspending the advertisement altogether to avoid distress or offence could be
preferable
Deodorant Ruling1
AD description
A TV ad, for Sure Invisible Black + White deodorant, started trust the experts with our superior Black and White protection superior to Nivea again yellow stains... A bar chart
entitles YELLOW STAIN PROTECTION was seen that showed a higher reading for a Sure product than a Nivea one. On-screen text stated For more details go to [web address]
*Instrumental testing.
Issue
Beiersdorf UK Ltd challenged whether the ads claim for Sure Invisible Black + White antiperspirant to be superior to Nivea Black and White antiperspirant could be substantiated.
Response
Unilever UK Ltd explained that the ad represented a new formula of Sure Invisible Black + White, which offered improved yellow stains protection compared to the previous
formula and the best protection against white marks and yellow stains within the Sure range. They said independent testing had also shown that Sure Invisible Black + White
offered better anti-yellow stains protection compared to Nivea Invisible Black and White, the leading competing product. The ad included two distinct claims: our superior Black
and White protectionand superior to Nivea against yellow stains.
Unilever believed it was clear that the claim our superior black and white protection referred to the advertised product as the best for black and white protection (the
protection of black clothes against white stains and white clothes against yellow stains) within the Sure brand range and sent studies to show that testing had been carried out
that confirmed this message. They also pointed out that the claim used our to indicate that the claim was aimed at products within the Sure range.
They said the claim superior to Nivea against yellow stain was clearly claim of superiority over competing Nivea product and was intended to highlight that the Sure product left
significantly less yellow staining on clothes than the Nivea product, as measured by consumer and laboratory testing. They confirmed that the testing involved externalised,
blinded data and submitted information on the testing protocol and results to the ASA.
Clear cast explained that they had based their approval for the evidence submitted to them,which included extensive information on the differences in product technologies and
their mechanisms of action, and an explanation of the test methods used.They pointed out that one of the tests had been conducted independently and that it had given results
to support a claim of superiority of the Sure product over that of Nivea in preventing the yellowing of white cotton. On- screen text had qualified that the results were based on
instrumental testing, and more details could be found at a given web address for viewers who wanted to verify the results.
Ruling 2
background
Summery of Council decision:
Fie issues were investigated, of which two were Not upheld and three were Upheld.
AD Description
A TV ad, a press ad and claims on a website for a deodorant:
a. The TV ad stated, Your underarm skin contains a diversity of natural bacteria, essential to keeping skin heathy. If this
diversity is disrupted it can affect your skins health. New Sanex antiperspirants fight odour causing bcteria and eave a
beneficial mix of bacteria. Sanex, keep skin healthy.
B. The pres ad featured a woman with her arm raised, and a image of white bacterial shapes was imposed over her armpit
beside text which read Bioresponse. Beneath this image, text read Did you know your skins natural bacteria* is
essential? The asterisk led to small print which read Bacterial Flora. Further text, next to an image of bottles of Sanex
deodorant, stated Your underarm skin contains natural bacteria, whilst respecting your skins natural bacteria, to keep it
protected and healthy. New Sanex deodorants. Work with your skin, not against it.
C. Claims on www.colgate.co.uk stated on the Our History tab, in the 2013 section, Bioresponse. Introducing Sanex
Bioreponse, a new generation of antiperspirants that work against odour causing bacteria whilst respecting your skins
natural bacteria* to keep it protected and healthy. *bacterial flora.
Ruling 2
Issue
Unilever challenged whether:
1. the claim that the product [fights] odour causing bacteria and [leaves] a beneficial mix of bacteria in ad (a) was misleading
because they understood that odour causing bacteria waistless a part of skins natural bacterial flora, rather than a separate
entity;
2. the claims the product [eliminates] odour-causing bacteria, whilst respecting your skins natural bacteria in ad(b) and
[works] against odour causing bacteria whilst respecting your skins natural bacteria in ad (c) were misleading, for the same
reason;
3. the claims in ad (a) that the product could fight one type of bacteria, namely odour causing bacteria, and leave a
beneficial mix of bacteria were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that the product contained
the ingredient aluminium chlorohydrate (ACH), which fought all forms of bacteria;
4. the claims in ads (b) and (c) that the product could eliminate orwork against one type of bacteria, namely odour causing
bacteria and leave natural bacteria were misleading and could be substantiated, for the same reason; and
5. the claims that if[bacterial diversity] is disrupted it can affect your skins health in ad (a) and that when underarm bacteria
is affected your skin can be left vulnerable in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood
that a reduction the levels of bacteria following an application of deodorant would not cause the skin to become vulnerable.
 Ruling 2
Response
1.-4 Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd (Colgate) said that normal skin exhibited a dominance of beneficial flora (including Staphylococcus epidermidis), a diverse mix of phyla (including
firmicutes, proteobacteria and bacteroidetes) and CFU values (the total abundance of bacteria on the skin) greater than 10 to the power three. They said that their data showed
that CFU values were greatly reduced after product use, but the remaining bacteria sill exhibited the former two features of normal skin, and did not cause dysbiosis or microbial
imbalance. They said that their product did not remove so much bacteria as to be detrimental to the kins health and did not alter the skins natural bacterial diversity. They
accepted that odour-causing bacteria was part of the normal resident flora on the skin and that such diversity was good for the skins health, but explained that recent studies
demonstrated that odour -causing bacteria fell into a distinct and separate group, which could be distinguished from other types of flora. They provided three academic studies to
demonstrate that point.
They explained that, while the specific odour -causing bacteria, was part of the skins natural bacteria flora, if left unchecked and untreated, it created an unpleasant body odour
and has not been shown to be beneficial to human health. They said that studies demonstrated that specific odour -causing bacteria reacted differently to other types of bacteria
when tested in favourable conditions designed to inhabit growth. They pointed out that one of the conclusions of the academic studies was that it was possible to develop a
product designed to specifically fight that type of flora. They provided two sets of clinical data by two research institutes, including detailed methodologies and summaries, to show
that the product completely eradicated specific odour -causing bacteria after product use. They pointed out that removing all bacteria was harmful and their product sought to
eliminate body odour while ensuring the flora remained diverse.
Colgate said that their product did include ACH, but the unique combination of ingredients ensured that it had the overall effect of maintaining the skins natural bacterial diversity,
while reducing and eliminating specific odour -causing bacteria. they said the report from the research insinuate demonstrated, in line with recently published papers, that the ACH-
formula was effective against specific odour -causing bacteria eradicating it after product-use over a number of application, whereas other commensal bacteria (all three other
types of phyla which were found naturally on the skin and encompassing many bacterial species) survived on the skin after that time and the flora was dominated by phyla
firmicutes which included beneficial species such as Staphylococcus epidermis. They pointed out that the doctor fully confirmed the results in his letter. They provided two further
studies to substantiate the claim.
5. Colgate said that it was generally known that antiperspirants could effect the skins properties and bacterial flora, especially if they were formulated with inter alia, very low pH
values, high cumulative effects or contained anti-bacterial ingredients. They said that those factors could affect the skins natural flora and could, therefore, leave skin vulnerable to
dermatological problems. They provided three studies which they said demonstrated that a normal mix of bacteria was associated with health and was beneficial; disruption of
diversity could cause skin problems. They said their research demonstrated the product completely eradicates specific odour-causing bacteria, but still left a beneficial mix of
bacteria.
1. -5. Clear cast said that the claim were reviewed by an expert and that believed there was enough data to interpret the claims in such a way that the ad could be approved. They
provided the consultants reports and Colgates response to the consultants comment. They said they understood the product did leave majority of skin-friendly bacteria and,
while there was no evidence to suggest that was a healthy outcome, they believe they could approve the ad on that basis. They said they understood that the product was not
damaging for the skin.