In a significant decision, UK regulators have implemented a ban on a television commercial for Sanex shower gel. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) concluded that the advertisement might suggest a superiority of white skin compared to black skin. This ruling underscores the sensitivity surrounding race and representation in advertising, particularly in a time when diversity and inclusivity are critical topics in media and marketing.
The ASA’s decision followed complaints from two individuals who perceived the ad as reinforcing negative stereotypes towards individuals with darker skin tones. This response highlights the ongoing societal discussions regarding representation in advertising and how visual imagery can evoke perceptions that may not align with contemporary values of equality and respect for all skin tones. The complaints prompted an investigation into the advertisement, with the ASA considering the implications of its content carefully.
The controversial advertisement, which was aired in June, featured a Black model depicted with red scratch marks on her skin and another individual with skin appearing cracked and clay-like. Meanwhile, a voice-over invited viewers to experience a new Sanex product asserting, “Try to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24-hour hydration feel.” The imagery of a White woman showering alongside these models was central to the ASA’s assessment.
The ad concluded with a message suggesting that “relief could be as simple as a shower,” implying that the use of the Sanex product could offer a straightforward solution for skin issues. The contrast between the different models did not escape scrutiny, as those with visible skin discomfort were showcased in stark opposition to the smoother, cleaner depiction of the White model after using the product.
Colgate-Palmolive, the parent company of the Sanex brand, defended the commercial, claiming that the inclusion of models with varying skin tones indicated their commitment to diversity. Their position was that the ad utilized a ‘before and after’ structure to demonstrate that their product was effective for all skin types. The company maintained that the intention was not to create a racial comparison but rather to showcase the product’s universal applicability.
Moreover, Clearcast, the organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising, backed Colgate-Palmolive’s stance, stating that the ad aimed to reflect inclusivity. Despite this support, the ASA found the ad’s structure problematic. The organization pointed out that the representation of Black skin correlating with discomfort while the White model was visibly improved post-use of the product could foster interpretations of racial hierarchy. Their review concluded that the portrayal might suggest a hierarchy of desirability between skin tones, leading to a potentially damaging message.
The regulator acknowledged that while this interpretation may not have been the intention behind the commercial, the imagery created an unfortunate narrative that many viewers could perceive, whether intended or not. This decision emphasizes how advertising practices can inadvertently propagate stereotypes and have significant ramifications for brands, particularly in the eyes of consumers who are increasingly sensitive to issues of racism and representation.
Ultimately, the ASA determined that the advertisement breached the broadcast advertising code and was likely to offend viewers. Colgate-Palmolive has been approached for additional comment regarding this decision, marking another chapter in the complex dialogue surrounding advertising ethics and the critical importance of cultural sensitivity in marketing practices today. The ruling serves as a reminder of the responsibility brands hold in ensuring their messages are inclusive and respectful across all demographics.
