Ad description
A TV ad for Velform shapewear by JML, seen in November 2024, featured several “before and after” images of different women wearing the Velform Cross Compression Shaper. A voice-over stated, “The incredible figure enhancing shapewear […] Velform Cross Compression Shaper flattens your tummy, shapes away love handles, and minimizes muffin tops. Wrapping around your sides to smooth away unwanted love handles. Then the Cross Compression wraps around your back to help smooth away back fat […] it will help you achieve your perfect shape […] and trims your waistline.” A woman stated, “We’ve all tried exercising and dieting to get the look that we want in our midsection. That takes a long time, but with this shapewear, you get instant results […] it gives you a beautiful look.”
Issue
Three complainants, who believed the “before and after” scenes had been digitally edited, challenged whether the ad misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of the product.
Response
John Mills Ltd t/a JML believed that the ad had not misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of the Velform Cross Compression Shaper product. They said they carried out a consumer study to ensure the claims accurately reflected the product’s capabilities. JML stated that the third-party supplier of the product provided them with an assurance that the ‘before and after’ scenes had not been digitally edited and explained that they were reliant on suppliers to provide them with accurate information. They believed that the suppliers’ assurance, alongside the consumer study, mitigated any concerns regarding the scenes in the ad.
Clearcast said that the claims were based on the results from a consumer perception study. For example, 75% of respondents agreed that the product flattened their tummy, whilst 85% agreed that it “minimised muffin tops”. They confirmed that JML had provided an assurance that no video editing effects had been used to exaggerate the product’s capabilities. They believed the ad showcased the product in the best possible manner, but acknowledged that the level of efficacy would have likely varied from person to person.
Clearcast provided a presentation of “before and after” images of participants wearing the product. Those images were not featured in the ad. Although they believed that the difference the product made in some images was minimal, they considered that in other images, there was a significantly noticeable difference. They therefore believed that the claims and scenes in the ad were representative of the performance of the product.
Assessment
Upheld
The BCAP Code stated broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience was likely to regard as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation. It also stated that ads must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
The ASA considered that the various “before and after” scenes throughout the ad created the impression that the product had a significant effect in altering the shape and size of the models’ bodies, particularly their waists and stomachs. We considered viewers would have understood those scenes to be objective visual claims of the Velform Cross Compression Shaper product’s efficacy. That impression was reinforced by the claims made by the voice-over that “[…] with this shapewear, you get instant results” and “[…] it will help you achieve your perfect shape”.
While we acknowledged that the claims made by the voice-over were based on results of the consumer study provided by JML, we considered that viewers’ overall impression of the efficacy of the product would be informed mainly by the “before and after” scenes. We therefore expected to see evidence that consumers would be able to achieve similar results when using the product. We also expected to see evidence that the scenes were genuine and had not been modified to exaggerate the capabilities of the product.
We examined the “before and after” image presentation of participants wearing the product, which we understood featured different individuals to the models who appeared in the ad. We considered that whilst there was a visible difference once the product was worn, the effects were significantly less pronounced than those seen in the ad. We considered the image presentation alone was not representative of the visual claims made in the ad and was therefore insufficient to substantiate the efficacy of the product.
JML did not provide any further evidence to demonstrate that the scenes were representative of the slimming effect consumers would have expected. They had also not provided evidence to show that the footage was unaltered, or that other techniques to edit the images had not been used. We were concerned that there were elements of the video that could have been digitally edited to exaggerate the performance of the product. For example, there was an apparent warping to parts of the background in some of the “before and after” scenes which may have been as a result of digital editing techniques.
Because JML had not sufficiently demonstrated the depicted efficacy of the product and that the scenes in the ad had not been digitally edited, we concluded the ad misleadingly exaggerated the capability of the product.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation), and 3.12 (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told John Mills Ltd t/a JML to ensure that their ads did not misleadingly exaggerate the efficacy of their products in the absence of adequate substantiation.
