'Racist' Sanex ad exposes adland's failure to grasp DEI

Colgate-Palmolive has found itself in hot water with the ad watchdog over a “seriously offensive” TV ad for Sanex shower gel, which has been slammed for inadvertently suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin.

On the surface, the TV spot – devised by agency Hogarth Worldwide – could be perceived as a simple “before and after” spot, showing the benefits of the shower gel.

However, when studied closer, a different picture emerges and one that will no doubt reinforce the view that the ad industry is still failing to look at the bigger picture of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Launching in June this year, the ad opened with scenes of a black woman with red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked clay-like material as a voiceover stated: “To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water.”

It then stated: “Try to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24 hour hydration feel” alongside a visual of a white woman having a shower with the Sanex product. At the end of the ad, on-screen text and the voiceover concluded: “Relief could be as simple as a shower.”

However, two viewers rifled off complaints to the Advertising Standards Authroity, insisting the ad perpetuated negative stereotypes about people with darker skin tones, and challenged whether it was offensive.

In its defence, Colgate-Palmolive maintained it was dedicated to providing solutions for all types of skin, regardless of the individual’s background.

The firm claimed that, as part of its commitment to diversity, the ad featured models with varied backgrounds, skin tones and ethnicities. The depiction of diverse models in the ad, either experiencing skin discomfort or post-product relief, was use in a “before and after” scenario to show their product was suitable and effective for all, rather than as a comparison based on race or ethnicity.

On that basis, the company believed the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

TV ad clearing house Clearcast supported this view, stating that it did not believe the ad perpetuated negative racial stereotypes and instead demonstrated the product’s inclusivity. It explained that one model with darker skin was shown with dry skin. However, it was depicted in a stylised and unrealistic way to demonstrate dryness.

Further to that, her skin tone was not a focal point. A second model, also with darker skin, was shown with itchy skin. However, that was portrayed through scratching visibly healthy skin and the resulting marks. It was therefore more about sensation than any visible skin condition. They said that the ad illustrated a “before and after” effect using the product and as such did not breach the Code.

However, the ASA was having none of it and cited the BCAP Code, which requires marketers to ensure that ads do not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, with particular care to be taken to avoid causing offence on grounds of various characteristics, including race.

The ASA did accept that the use of the different skin colours was a means of portraying a “before and after” of the product’s use, which created a juxtaposition of black skin shown as itchy, dry and cracked in the ‘before’ scenes, and white skin shown as smoother skin in the ‘after’ scenes.

The ad was therefore structured in such a way that it was the black skin, depicted in association with itchy and dry skin, which was shown to be problematic and uncomfortable, whereas the white skin, depicted as smoother and clean after using the product, was shown successfully changed and resolved.

However, in this context the regulator considered that could be interpreted as suggesting white skin was superior to black skin.

Although the ASA understood that this message was not the one intended and might appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers, it nevertheless considered that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior.

Concluding that the ad included a racial stereotype and was therefore likely to cause serious offence, the regulator banned the spot from appearing again in that form and warned Colgate-Palmolive over future activity.