A TV advert for Sanex shower gel on screens in June has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) after it was ruled to use racial stereotypes.
The ad included a voiceover that stated, “To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water” alongside scenes of a black woman with red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked clay-like material.
The ad then stated, “Try to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24-hour hydration feel” alongside a visual of a white woman having a shower with the Sanex product.
Two complainants who believed the ad perpetuated negative stereotypes about people with darker skin tones, challenged whether the ad was offensive.
In response, supplier Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd said they were dedicated to providing solutions for all types of skin, regardless of the individual’s background and that as part of its commitment to diversity, the ad featured models with varied backgrounds, skin tones and ethnicities.
The depiction of diverse models in the ad, either experiencing skin discomfort or post-product relief, was utilised in a “before and after” scenario to show their product was suitable and effective for all, it said, rather than as a comparison based on race or ethnicity. On that basis, it believed the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes.
Agency Clearcast added that its ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and instead demonstrated the product’s inclusivity. They explained that one model with darker skin was shown with dry skin.
Marketers need to ensure that ads do not contain anything likely to cause serious or widespread offence, with particular care to be taken to avoid causing offence on grounds of various characteristics, including race.
The ASA accepted that the use of the different skin colours was a means of portraying a “before and after” of the product’s use, which created a juxtaposition of black skin shown as itchy, dry and cracked in the ‘before’ scenes, and white skin shown as smoother skin in the ‘after’ scenes.
It said the ad was therefore structured in such a way that it was the black skin was shown to be problematic and uncomfortable, whereas the white skin was shown successfully changed and resolved. It said it considered that could be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black.
The ASA concluded that the ad included a racial stereotype and was therefore likely to cause serious offence. The ad must not appear again in the form complained of.
No comments yet