Viewers confused but ASA rule Unilever ad does not mislead audience


- Last updated on GMT

Viewers confused but ASA rule Unilever ad does not mislead audience
British advertising regulatory body the ASA has ruled that a recent Unilever advert, which received 10 complaints, did not mislead its audience - despite the confusing effect it had on the audience.

The TV ad for Dove soap depicted test paper and water being applied to four different bars of soap, with a caption stating “time lapse 2 minutes with repeated water applications.”

This test aimed to demonstrate that Dove did not have a dehydrating effect on the skin; however, this effect was undermined by the fact that the text specifying a 2 minute time lapse faded away before the Unilever bar appeared on screen.   

However, the ASA concluded that the evidence demonstrated that a range of soap bars had been subject to the same test conditions and that the ad fairly represented that.”

Unilever response

The TV advert was intended to show that Dove brand soap was more moisturizing than the alternatives depicted and did not damage the strip of test paper like the other bars.  

However, the complainants got the wrong impression from the ad, believing that the Dove bar was not subjected to the same test conditions as the other products depicted.

Unilever has stated that the depiction of the test was inadvertently misleading, and that the experiment was performed in the exact same conditions each time. It was said to be “purely coincidental” ​that the text faded away before the Dove bar appeared.

They also said that they would be prepared to extend the duration for which the text appeared on screen in the future, in order to assist viewers who had gotten the wrong idea.

ASA comments

After reviewing the photos and videos submitted by Unilever, the ASA concluded: “While we acknowledge the time at which the on-screen text disappeared seemed to have led some viewers to believe that the Dove bar was subject to different test conditions to the other bars, we noted that was not the case.”

“We therefore concluded that the depiction of the test conditions was not misleading.”

Related news

Show more

Related products

show more

SymDiol® 68 a smart synergistic protectant

SymDiol® 68 a smart synergistic protectant

Symrise | 09-Oct-2017 | Product Brochure

Today, cosmetic formulators face an increasingly challenging task to protect formulations and at the same time answering consumers’ desires for less preservatives...


Performance of Sunscreens with Zemea® Propanediol

DuPont Tate & Lyle Bio Products | 25-Sep-2017 | Technical / White Paper

Two underutilized OTC Category 1 sunscreen actives include ensulizole and sulisobenzone. Downfalls of these water-soluble actives are crystallization when...


Improve the standard with euxyl® K 702

Schülke & Mayr GmbH | 18-Sep-2017 | Product Brochure

euxyl® K 702 has been developed to provide maximum protection while using minimum concentration levels. Its booster system consists of Ethylhexylglycerin...

Related suppliers