The UK Ad Watchdog Continues Campaign to Stop Unsubstantiated Claims By Cosmetic Manufacturers That They Have Found the Next Best Thing to the Fountain of Youth

Philip M. Stone August 25, 2005

Even the smiling face of super model Claudia Schiffer wasn’t enough to convince the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that make-up products from L’Oreal were the wonder products their television advertisements said they were. And therefore ASA made the French cosmetics company take the ads, part of a multimillion dollar television campaign, off the air.

It was not the first time that ASA has gone after make-up and beauty companies. Already this year it has stopped an ad for Pantene Pro-V Shampoo and Conditioner, manufactured by Proctor & Gamble, for claiming it can make hair “up to 10 times stronger.”

And Estee Lauder got nailed for claiming its Body Performance Anti-Cellulite Visible Contouring Serum destroyed cellulite or at least reduced its appearance.  Not so, said the ASA, acting on a complaint from a rival cosmetic company.  Estee Lauder said it would continue selling the product as “anti-cellulite” but it promised not to repeat the claims.

And in the woman’s world of paying through the nose to continue looking young and beautiful (ok, before you write, some guys also pay through the nose to continue looking young, handsome, and vigorous), anti-cellulite claims must be where the real beauty money is – remember those pictures taken in a gym that seemed to show Princess Diana had cellulite on her legs and the furor that caused?

ASA appears to be focusing on whether a beauty product that seems to promise eternal youth actually results in a physiological change for the consumer, or it is just a cosmetic that covers up the dreaded winkle or cellulite, but doesn’t actually make it go away.

ASA ruled against claims by L’Oreal’s Perfect Slim anti-cellulite cream, and Anti-Wrinkle De-Crease. Among the points made were that if you claim that 76% of women, for instance, find an improvement by using an anti-wrinkle product then you had better be able to back up that claim in trumps. ASA said the evidence provided by L’Oreal was insufficient.

And how often have you seen ads where the on-screen personality says one thing but the clarifications in very small print at the bottom of the screen tend to add all the “ands, ifs and buts? ASA didn’t take kindly to the winkle product saying it was the first to have a particular ingredient that counteracted tiny skin contractions, have the camera focus on various facial poses by Ms. Schiffer to seemingly indicate how well the product does, and then in the small print clarification at the bottom of the screen state that the claim applied to laboratory tests, but not yet to the human face. ASA said that was plain misleading!

In the cellulite judgment ASA has basically told the industry that if it uses the term “anti-cellulite” then it has better be able to prove there was not just a cosmetic change but also a physiological difference, too.

L’Oreal had claimed that in a survey of 48 women, 71% agreed with L’Oreal’s claim, but ASA disputed the manner in which the survey was conducted and said there was no real evidence to back up the claim.

One problem with the ASA rulings are that they basically contradict rulings by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Center that gives pre-approval to TV ads. The ASA expert disagreed with the Clearing Center’s expert and so ASA wins, but L’Oreal has spent the money producing the campaign thinking it had already been approved.

L’Oreal said it would comply with the ASA rulings and amend its advertising accordingly.

Actually it hasn’t been a very good PR month for the French cosmetics giant that has a presence in130 countries, but apparently has not learned from the HSBC advertisement campaign how important local knowledge is. Being in the beauty business it seems it wants its staff to be “hot” – good looking – but it has now learned that in California there are limits to what you can do to achieve that. 

The California Supreme Court has ruled, 4-2, that a male boss was wrong to  order a female supervisor to fire a female employee because she was not “good looking enough” and then make life hell for that supervisor  for refusing to carry out the task.

The female supervisor said she believed the firing order was discriminatory and illegal because male associates were not required to be attractive. She claimed that because she didn’t follow orders her work environment became hostile –excessive travel and the like -- and she finally went on permanent disability leave because of stress. It is seen as a landmark case to stop companies from retaliating against employees who don’t do what they are told for seemingly good reasons

And back in Europe a particularly sad note for the company -- Francois Dalle who headed L’Oreal for 27 years and transformed it from a company with 25 employees to a true multinational died this month in Geneva.

Perhaps his most innovative marketing ploy was to start in the 1950s selling L’Oreal products within retail stores whereas in the past they had been sold only at hair salons and pharmacies.

That simple strategy turned a French hair products company into the world’s leading retail global cosmetics giant.

Out of acorns …

ftm Follow Up & Comments