The TV ad, which was created by the McConnells Advertising agency for Sure Girl deodorant, showed three teenage girls dancing in the back of a moving vehicle without wearing seatbelts. The UK-based Advertising Standards Authority said it received 21 complaints from viewers who claimed that the ad was irresponsible because of the potential danger the action posed to the girls in the ad. Ad only broadcast in Ireland In its defense, Unilever UK said that the ad was only broadcast in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland by its sister company, Unilever Ireland. The company also said that because the van used to make the ad was a vintage VW model it was not fitted with seatbelts, and that the company had not been aware that vehicles of this age were required to be fitted with rear safety belts. Likewise, the company also stressed that the van was stationery at the time the shot featuring the girls dancing inside it was taken, a defining factor as to why the ad was approved for broadcast by the company. Despite the fact that the company said it did not believe the ad had breached the UK advertising code, Unilever Ireland decided to remove the ad as a direct result of the viewer concerns and the complaints to the ASA. ASA welcomed Unilever action In response the ASA welcomed Unilever's decision to remove the ad, but considered that the movement of the vehicle created by the teenagers dancing inside it did give the impression that it was in motion. "We concluded that, because the ad gave the impression that the teenagers were dancing in a moving vehicle without wearing seatbelts, the ad was likely to be seen to condone or encourage an unsafe practice," the ASA said in its official statement. Most recently the ASA has taken action against claims by companies marketing skin creams in the UK. Watchdog blast beauty creams Last month the watchdog published results of a study that took into consideration 445 beauty adverts across all media last summer and found that overall compliance with the advertising code was 93 per cent but only 81 per cent for skin creams. The results were described as 'somewhat disappointing' because they suggest beauty advertisers have not improved their performance. Compliance was also relatively poor compared to other sectors although the ASA said the figures were not so bad as to imply that the industry is not acting responsibly. Of the 24 skin creams that breached the rules, the ASA said six fell into this trap suggesting that cumulative claims are relatively common and that work needed to be done with industry to correct this.