Ad description
A TV ad, for Oral-B 3D White Brilliance toothpaste, featured a woman and a man sitting on a bus. The voice-over said, "When you smile, the world smiles back. Introducing new Oral-B 3D White Brilliance toothpaste. It helps whiten the front, back, and visible gaps between teeth, for whiter teeth in 2 weeks." The ad then featured Holly Willoughby who stated, "You see! No one can resist the perfect white smile. That's why Oral-B 3D White is always part of my beauty regime." She then smiled, revealing white teeth. The ad then featured an image of the product and was accompanied by on-screen text, which stated "Whiter teeth in two weeks".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims that the product could achieve whiter teeth in two weeks were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Procter & Gamble provided a clinical trial on the advertised product, which they believed substantiated the claims that the product could achieve whiter teeth in two weeks. They pointed out that the whitening effects a consumer may experience would vary from person to person, depending on a number of factors such as diet, frequency of brushing, visits to a dental hygienist, teeth shape and surface. They argued the habits and practices of the subjects in the clinical study were consistent with those of UK consumers and therefore the levels and type of stain were therefore representative of the UK population.
Proctor & Gamble said ten subjects were needed to establish statistical confidence of at least 95%, the established level of statistical significance for clinical research. They pointed out that the study design incorporated 14 subjects per leg to allow for subjects dropping out during the study. They also pointed out that all subjects experienced a stain reduction and that the stain reduction ranged from 36% to 100%. They therefore argued the trial demonstrated the product achieved whiter teeth in two weeks.
Clearcast said they sought the advice of their dental consultant, who believed the clinical trial submitted by Proctor & Gamble, substantiated the claims in respect of the degree of stain reduction and the time period involved. The consultant acknowledged that the study had only 30 participants, but believed it generated significant results.
Assessment
Not Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would understand the ad to mean that the advertised product could achieve whiter teeth in two weeks. We sought expert advice on the substantiation provided by Proctor & Gamble. The expert pointed out that the trial was not a full publication and had therefore not been subject to peer review.
We noted Proctor & Gamble's comments that the formula tested was identical in all conceivable and relevant ways with regard to the whitening efficacy of Oral-B 3D White Brilliance. They acknowledged that red pigment paste, mica and blue pigment paste had been added to the advertised product; the sodium fluoride level of the advertised product had been reduced to allow testing of the product in the United States of America; and the sorbitol level in the advertised product had been reduced to accommodate the addition of the paste and sodium fluoride. We sought the opinion of the expert on the differences between the advertised product and that which was the subject of the clinical trial. The expert considered the differences were unlikely to affect the staining capacity of the two products.
We noted the clinical trial involved a sample of 30 subjects and of that number, only 14 individuals trialled the product of a similar formulation to the advertised product. However, we acknowledged Proctor & Gamble’s comments that the power calculation indicated sufficient numbers were used in the trial and noted our expert’s view that they appeared sufficient. We therefore considered the claims were not misleading and had been substantiated.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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) and 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
