Retail giant Boots has been cut down to size by the ad watchdog after a TV ad for its No7 Future Renew serum was found to be both irresponsible and harmful for suggesting that consumers should not bother with sunscreen as they could simply tackle skin damage retrospectively.
Both the TV and video on demand (VOD) ad, seen in April this year, began with a woman looking at a photograph from 10 years ago and she said: “Remember this? Can’t believe we didn’t always use sunscreen.” Small print stated: “Recommended with daily SPF usage.”
Another version of the woman, with a second woman, came to life in a photograph and responded saying: “I know, right, we were too busy having fun.” It then switched to a contemporary version of the first woman in a photograph, saying: “Let’s not regret our sunny memories.” To which the second woman in a framed photo next to the first whispered: “Let’s do something about it.”
The voiceover then stated: “No 7 Future Renew serum” and continued – with on-screen text – “Clinically proven to reverse visible signs of sun damage. A world-first peptide technology.”
Small print stated: “Appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, ueven skin tone and dullness.” The final shot showed the range of No7 Future Renew products as the voiceover and on-screen text said: “Don’t regret just reverse.”
However, 18 complainants, who believed the ads condoned not using sunscreen by stating skin damage could be dealt with retrospectively with the product, objected that the commercials were irresponsible and harmful, particularly due to the risks associated with skin cancer.
In its defence, Boots insisted that, as a pharmacy-led retailer and a manufacturer of health and beauty products, including sun protection and skincare products, it took sun protection very seriously.
The company pointed out that its promotion of sunscreen and sun protection included partnerships with MacMillan Cancer Support, the Irish Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society; it also had various initiatives in store to train staff to provide assistance and advice to consumers about sun protection.
Boots explained that the background to the ad was based on three pieces of consumer research. These showed many consumers regularly did not apply sunscreen or only did so when in the sun for extended periods or in full sunshine, and few understood that the main cause of the visible facial signs of ageing was the damaging effects of repeated exposure to the sun.
Skin ageing was often seen by the women surveyed as an inevitability and even when they were made aware that 80% of visible skin damage was caused by the sun, they struggled to attribute it to the damage and not just the passing of time.
Boots added that 70% of annual exposure to the sun occurred outside of the traditional two-week summer holiday, including in the autumn and winter months. Based on that knowledge, the ad depicted a series of outdoor memory scenarios, such as a picnic in the shade, a festival or a walk in the woods where both the settings and clothing shown, indicated temperatures that were not especially hot. They were events where using sunscreen would not have been at the forefront of a person’s mind ten years ago.
Boots confirmed there was also intentionally no use of scenes such as the beach or pool, of prolonged lack of sun protection or of sun protection intentionally not being used.
It went on to argue that, as explained in the small print, the ad did not imply that all forms of damage caused by the sun could be addressed by using the No7 Future Renew serum and was prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and society.
Advertising clearing house Clearcast said it did not have any issue with the ad.
However, the Advertising Standards Authority was not quite so enthralled.
While the watchdog did acknowledge Boots’ argument that the examples of not using sunscreen were historic, and therefore not a reflection of the women’s current attitude, the women in the ads made statements such as “too busy having fun” to have always used sunscreen and ”Let’s not regret our sunny memories” but “do something about it” using the product.
The ASA considered that the tone of the conversation between the women was “light-hearted and flippant” about the subject of sun damage and would be seen to suggest that not using suncream could be taken lightly.
It considered that message was further reinforced by claims that the visible signs of damage resulting from previous exposure to the sun could be reversed by using the product.
And, although small on-screen text said, “Recommended with daily SPF usage”, it appeared at the beginning of the ad only for a brief period of time.
Concluding that the ads condoned exposure to the sun without sunscreen and therefore were irresponsible and harmful, the ASA banned the ads in the current form and warned Boots about future activity.
Boots has yet to respond to the ruling.
Related stories
‘Funny’ Valentine’s ad gets tongue-lashing from ASA
ASA pulls plug on baby-faced rapper rum promotion
‘Suicide’ ad for life insurance fintech shot down by ASA
ASA rips down ‘Get laid by the best’ plastic grass ad
‘Titillating’ and ‘insensitive’ Ukrainian dating ad dumped
