Ad description
A pre-roll ad on YouTube, seen on 22 February 2024, for Wild deodorant, featured a woman dressed in a sports bra and jogging trousers, with visible bruising on her chest, applying deodorant. The voice-over said, “As a breast cancer thriver I’m prioritising my health and I’ve decided to finally go Wild. I’ve seen so many positive comments about how it’s completely natural […] I had to see for myself […]”. The ad included close-up shots of the woman’s chest, which showed visible bruising and scarring.
Issue
The complainant, who believed the ad implied that there was a link between ‘traditional’ deodorants and breast cancer, challenged whether that implication was misleading and could be substantiated.Response
Wild Cosmetics t/a Wild did not consider the ad misleading. They said that the woman featured in the ad only stated that she was a breast cancer survivor and did not state anything to the effect that Wild would stop people from getting breast cancer. Because they had partnered with a breast cancer charity and released a breast-shaped case to support them, it was not surprising that many of their customers were also breast cancer survivors. The ad did not infer that using natural deodorants would stop individuals from developing cancer, and they considered that it was a giant leap to come to that conclusion.
They considered that because the lady in the ad had been through breast cancer, she could be referring to various reasons why she would “prioritise [my] health”. They believed that the most obvious explanation for her claim was because Wild was considered a healthy product, made with ingredients such as coconut oil and shea butter, which were moisturising and good for the skin. They considered that this claim was factual. They noted that the ad did not mention at any point “compared to an antiperspirant” or make related claims. They expressed concern that upholding this complaint would prevent breast cancer survivors from advertising natural deodorants.
Assessment
Upheld
The ad featured the claims “As a breast cancer thriver I’m prioritising my health and I’ve decided to finally go Wild” and “I’ve seen so many positive comments about how it’s completely natural […]”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand those claims to mean that the woman featured in the ad had chosen to switch to Wild deodorant from a deodorant that was not “natural”, and that decision was for health reasons.Furthermore, the ad placed significant emphasis on the woman’s history of breast cancer, both by the visual emphasis on her bruising and scarring, and the accompanying claim “As a breast cancer thriver I’m prioritising my health […]”. We understood that there was a common misconception that “traditional” deodorants or antiperspirants (terms which, though distinct in meaning, were often understood interchangeably) that contained ingredients such as titanium dioxide and aluminium and were seen as less “natural” were linked to breast cancer.
However, we further understood that this suggested link was unproven. While the ad did not explicitly make reference to that misconception, we considered that it alluded to it. We therefore considered that the ad implied “traditional” deodorants were harmful to health and likely linked to breast cancer, and that Wild, a “natural” deodorant, did not carry that risk.We therefore expected to see evidence to substantiate that the use of ”traditional” deodorants or antiperspirants had a negative impact on health, including a risk of breast cancer and that the Wild deodorant was a safer alternative to those products. Because we did not receive such evidence, we concluded that the implied claim that “traditional” deodorants were harmful to health and likely linked to breast cancer had not been substantiated and was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), 3.47 (Endorsements and testimonials) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Wild Cosmetics Ltd t/a Wild to ensure that they did not mislead consumers by implying that there was a link between competing products and breast cancer, unless they held sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.
