Advertisment
A video which appeared on the Johnson & Johnson Facebook page and on the website Mummypages.ie featured a woman and her young child sitting at a kitchen table. A packet of Johnson & Johnson Baby Wipes and a packet of WaterWipes were on the table. The woman, speaking to the camera, stated:
“I’m Elaine and I’m a mum and at home we get through a lot of wipes. But are all wipes the same? Johnson’s have challenged me to find out. Research has shown that the ideal baby skincare product should have a PH as close as possible to baby’s natural skin PH of about 5.5, as this helps to protect from irritation and nappy rash. So the PH of baby’s skin would be between these two colours on a PH testing kit.”
The woman is shown browsing websites which provide information on the PH levels of skin and also shown pointing to the relevant colour on a PH testing kit for a level of 5.5.
“So, let’s test the wipes.”
She then places a PH level testing strip on a wipe from each pack and compares the colour of each strip against the testing kit.
“The Johnson’s comes out this colour”
The resulting colour is matched against the level 5.5 on the testing kit.
“which is pretty close to the baby’s skin PH”
While the resulting colour of the WaterWipes is matched against a PH level of between 7 and 8 on the testing kit.
“and these are the WaterWipes, closer to 8
Oh, wow! Makes you think.”
Complaint
Two complaints were received regarding the video, one from a consumer complainant while the other was received from Irish Breeze.
The consumer complainant considered that the video was misleading as it was using science that was far from exact and was using it in a way to influence the buyer, without providing full information.
Irish Breeze objected to the advertisement on the following grounds:
They considered that the advertisement was presenting information in a manner that was likely to mislead consumers and also provoke questions about the fitness for purpose of the WaterWipes product, therefore, discrediting the product. They considered that comments posted about the video on Facebook by consumers demonstrated their concern.
They considered that the reference in the advertisement to the effect of WaterWipes on the PH of a baby’s skin was deliberately vague and alarmist and had undermined consumer confidence in the product. They considered that the innuendo in the advertisement was that any product with a PH above/below 5.5 could cause irritation and nappy rash. They said that WaterWipes contained 99.9% water and a drop of grapefruit seed extract, did not irritate the skin and were safe for use on sensitive skin. They said that WaterWipes had been designed to be gentle on babies’ sensitive skin and had been approved by both Allergy UK and the National Eczema Association of America.
They also considered that the advertisement was misleading due to the fact that it implied that a PH reading of 5.5 alone was enough to show that a product was more suitable, without reference to any other material factors and they did not consider that such a claim could be substantiated. They said that while PH readings alone may be verifiable features of a product, they objected to the premise that a PH reading could, for the purposes of determining the suitability of a product for use on a baby’s skin or demonstrating the actual risk of skin irritation or nappy rash presented by a product, be fairly compared in isolation from other factors without giving rise to a likelihood of a consumer being misled.
They considered that the consumer commentary on the advertisement clearly showed that there was concern about the contents of WaterWipes and they considered that the advertisement was therefore exploiting the average consumers’ credulity and lack of knowledge regarding the effect of the PH value of a baby skincare product on skin.
They considered that the final statement “Oh wow, makes you think” implied, and led the viewer to believe, that Johnson’s wipes performed better than WaterWipes in regards to skin irritation and nappy rash. They said that the results of a PH reading alone did not substantiate this claim. They considered that the unmistakable insinuation of the final statement was that the results of the PH reading carried out demonstrated that the WaterWipes product was not fit for purpose and presented a considerable risk of irritating a baby’s skin as well as considerable risk of causing nappy rash. They considered that this therefore unfairly attacked, discredited and denigrated the WaterWipes products, the marks under which it was marketed and the reputation of Irish Breeze.
Response
Two complaints were received regarding the video, one from a consumer complainant while the other was received from Irish Breeze.
The consumer complainant considered that the video was misleading as it was using science that was far from exact and was using it in a way to influence the buyer, without providing full information.
Irish Breeze objected to the advertisement on the following grounds:
They considered that the advertisement was presenting information in a manner that was likely to mislead consumers and also provoke questions about the fitness for purpose of the WaterWipes product, therefore, discrediting the product. They considered that comments posted about the video on Facebook by consumers demonstrated their concern.
They considered that the reference in the advertisement to the effect of WaterWipes on the PH of a baby’s skin was deliberately vague and alarmist and had undermined consumer confidence in the product. They considered that the innuendo in the advertisement was that any product with a PH above/below 5.5 could cause irritation and nappy rash. They said that WaterWipes contained 99.9% water and a drop of grapefruit seed extract, did not irritate the skin and were safe for use on sensitive skin. They said that WaterWipes had been designed to be gentle on babies’ sensitive skin and had been approved by both Allergy UK and the National Eczema Association of America.
They also considered that the advertisement was misleading due to the fact that it implied that a PH reading of 5.5 alone was enough to show that a product was more suitable, without reference to any other material factors and they did not consider that such a claim could be substantiated. They said that while PH readings alone may be verifiable features of a product, they objected to the premise that a PH reading could, for the purposes of determining the suitability of a product for use on a baby’s skin or demonstrating the actual risk of skin irritation or nappy rash presented by a product, be fairly compared in isolation from other factors without giving rise to a likelihood of a consumer being misled.
They considered that the consumer commentary on the advertisement clearly showed that there was concern about the contents of WaterWipes and they considered that the advertisement was therefore exploiting the average consumers’ credulity and lack of knowledge regarding the effect of the PH value of a baby skincare product on skin.
They considered that the final statement “Oh wow, makes you think” implied, and led the viewer to believe, that Johnson’s wipes performed better than WaterWipes in regards to skin irritation and nappy rash. They said that the results of a PH reading alone did not substantiate this claim. They considered that the unmistakable insinuation of the final statement was that the results of the PH reading carried out demonstrated that the WaterWipes product was not fit for purpose and presented a considerable risk of irritating a baby’s skin as well as considerable risk of causing nappy rash. They considered that this therefore unfairly attacked, discredited and denigrated the WaterWipes products, the marks under which it was marketed and the reputation of Irish Breeze.
In response to the consumer complainant, the advertiser said that the complainant had not specified what claims in the advertisement they were objecting to, nor had they provided a basis on which they were objecting to. They said that they were inferring that the complaint was in regards to the comparison of Johnson & Johnson baby wipes against the Irish Breeze WaterWipes and therefore their response to the complaint from Irish Breeze would cover both complaints.
In response to the complaint from Irish Breeze, they firstly stated that comparative advertising was, in principle, legal in the European Union and that understandably owners of brands targeted in such campaigns often resented this and frequently they resorted to regulatory or legal mechanisms to curtail or prevent it. They believed that this was what Irish Breeze were seeking to do here. They said that the claims in the advertisement were narrow, specific and well-substantiated and were not objectionable. They believed that the complainants had relied on alleged implications, insinuations and innuendos. They considered that Irish Breeze had over-relied on consumer comment, asserting that consumers were confused or misled and to support this they had offered consumer commentary rather than explaining how the advertising was misleading. They considered this was inadequate as consumer commentary should be systematically gathered by way of proper surveys. In regards to the levels of engagement with the video post on Facebook, they said that although there was an apparently large number of people engaging with the post, the number engaging was actually minimal, 235 individuals out of 305,000 reached, therefore the assertion that the advertisement caused widespread concern was therefore misconceived.
In regards to the consumer comments, they said that many were based on misunderstandings; for example, that comparative advertising was not allowed. They also considered that many of the comments were matters of opinion that had no bearing on whether they had complied with the Code. They said that because a consumer did not like comparative advertising, or that they resented the suggestion that the product had an advantage over their usual brand, had nothing to do with the question of whether the advertisement breached the Code.
The advertisers also referred to a document of consumer comments to the Facebook post that had been included with Irish Breeze’s complaint without any explanation as to why they had provided it. They noted that some of the comments were from consumers who appeared to resent Johnson’s Baby Wipes because of a suspicion of ‘chemicals’ or of ‘Big Pharma’. They said that these consumers often made comments along the lines that a product such as WaterWipes, heavily marketed as ‘pure’ and ‘natural’, must be preferable to other products which contained more ingredients. While they understood the concerns of parents to use only the safest and gentlest products to care for their babies, there was no reason to suppose that a product was better or safer just because it was simpler or had fewer ingredients. They said that it was notable that none of the comments disclosed any reason why a product with fewer ingredients would be preferable to one with more. They referred to a presentation given by Irish Breeze at the Maternity, Midwifery & Baby London 2017 conference which referred to an individual’s experience of using baby wipes on his daughter’s skin giving rise to nappy rash and contact dermatitis compared to using cotton wool and water which did not irritate the skin in any way. They said that the comments during the presentation was a good example of the insinuation that simple or natural must be better and considered that the comments included an unjustified assertion that baby wipes containing multiple ingredients could not be as kind and gentle as cotton wool and water and also gave a generalised suspicion of ingredients. They considered that this suspicion was misplaced as an independent randomised clinical trial of cleansing regimes for healthy newborn babies found that using Johnson’s Baby Skincare Fragrance-Free wipes had an equivalent effect on skin hydration when compared with cotton wool and water. The results also showed that there was no evidence of any difference between the two cleansing regimens for any of the additional skin assessments, and no adverse reactions were recorded. They said that while these insinuations were unscientific, it was counter-intuitive that a product with a PH value of around 5.5 would be more advantageous, in that feature, than a product consisting almost entirely of water. They said that their purpose for presenting the advertisement was to challenge the proposition that a ‘natural’ product was necessarily to be preferred by pointing out that, on one important characteristic, their product accords with expert advice in a way that WaterWipes do not. They considered that it was perfectly reasonable and not misleading, for them to draw to consumers’ attention that fact that, in one important characteristic, their mildly acidic wipes had a well-substantiated advantage over an alkaline wipe.
The advertisers referred to the fact that Irish Breeze contacted them prior to making their complaint and while the advertisers rejected their allegations, they did confirm that the advertisement had come to an end of its run and that they did not intend to use it in the future. The advertisers said that they removed the advertisement from third party websites and stopped promoting it on Facebook. They said that due to an oversight, the advertisement was not actually removed from the Facebook product page, remaining visible, for 12 further days, only to people visiting the product page pro-actively and to people who had engaged with it previously, such as liking or sharing it.
The advertisers did not consider that the consumer comments referred to by Irish Breeze assisted the basis of their complaint. They considered that the quotations were offered as if they self-evidently supported the complaint. While the advertiser regretted that there was consumer disappointment, they did not consider that consumer disappointment was a breach of the Code.
In response to the complaint that they had used innuendo around the claim that any product with a PH level above/below 5.5 could cause irritation and nappy rash, they said that the advertisement had not stated this or anything similar. They said that the advertisement had clearly stated that “research has shown that the ideal baby skincare product should have a PH as close as possible to babies’ natural skin PH of about 5.5 as this helps to protect from irritation and nappy rash.” They said that this was a positive claim that products with a PH close to that of babies’ skin can have a preventative beneficial effect. They said that it said nothing about products having another PH causing nappy rash.
The advertiser said that a babies’ natural skin PH was about 5.5 and that this was an uncontentious statement that had been well known for decades. They attached various studies supporting this, however, statements from each report varied slightly, with the ultimate result being that the skin’s actual PH level varied from individual to individual and even with individuals. They said that due to this, they had decided to state in the advertisement that “natural skin PH is about 5.5” They also referred to the fact that each study had quoted the PH or PH range in the region of, or encompassing, a PH of 5.5.
In regards to the claim that “research has shown that the ideal baby skincare product should have a PH as close as possible to babies’ natural skin PH of about 5.5 as this helps to protect from irritation and nappy rash.”, they referred to further studies which showed that this was a well-known and uncontentious fact. They again referred to the presentation given by an employee of Irish Breeze at the Maternity, Midwifery & Baby London 2017 conference which had included a slide with the heading “Early Protection” and stated “Choosing products for use on new-born and infant skin – PH neutral (PH 5.5 – 7)…”, therefore, they considered that the complainants had themselves recommended that products for use on baby skin should be in the range of PH 5.5 to 7.
In regards to the PH value of the Johnson & Johnson and WaterWipes products, they said that they had conducted labortary tests to establish the PH values of the lotions contained in WaterWipes and in the Johnson’s Extra Sensitive Baby Wipes which they considered substantiated their claims. They provided the test results and data, on a confidential basis, to ASAI.
The advertisers commented on Irish Breeze’s complaint that they did not accept that a PH reading of close to 5.5 was, in and of itself, determinate of a baby wipe product’s suitability for use on a baby’s skin or determinative of the risk of irritation or nappy rash. They said that the advertisement had neither said nor implied that any particular PH reading was ‘determinative’ of risk. They said that the claim was that research had shown that the ideal baby skincare product should have a PH as close as possible to a babies’ natural skin PH of about 5.5 as this helped to prevent irritation and nappy rash. They said that a claim that a characteristic of a product merely helps with a specified problem of limited scope was not a claim that the characteristic was determinative of its overall suitability for use. They therefore, considered that the claim was not misleading.
The advertisers also commented on Irish Breeze’s complaint that the advertisement implied that a PH reading of 5.5 alone was enough to show that a product was more suitable, without reference to any other material factors. They said that the advertisement did not state this. They said that while PH was an important factor in the suitability of a product, they did accept that it was one of a number of factors, however, nothing in the advertisement said or implied anything else.
In regards to the complaint concerning the end statement “Oh wow, makes you think” that it clearly implied and led the viewer to believe that Johnson’s wipes performed better than the WaterWipes product as regards to skin irritation and nappy rash, they said that this was pure speculation as the claims in the advertisement were perfectly clear.
The advertiser noted that some of the social media commentary referred to by Irish Breeze included misconceptions that ‘chemicals’ were undesirable and that Irish Breeze considered the comments revealed concerns about the content of the advertisement and how it was exploiting the average consumer’s credulity and lack of knowledge of the effect of the PH value of a baby skincare product on a baby’s skin. They considered that such comments articulated a general, unspecified suspicion of ‘chemicals’, together with the conclusion that WaterWipes must be safer as they have ‘no chemicals’. The advertisers noted that the consumers say they were confused, however, it appeared that their confusion had been caused by being presented with a benefit of the Johnson & Johnson product that conflicted the received wisdom that products ‘without chemicals’ must be better. They said that the actual information given in the advertisement was perfectly clear, and they did not consider that there was any reason to infer from the comments that the consumers were confused about what was said. They said that, if anything, it was Irish Breeze who had successfully exploited consumers’ credulity and lack of knowledge as they appear to have accepted the popular pseudo-scientific narrative that natural things are safe and that manufactured products are unsafe. They considered that the commentary had given the impression of consumers who have an emotional attachment to the proposition that ‘natural equals safe’ and have a strong reaction to having this, and their choice made on behalf of their babies, questioned. They considered that the comments said nothing of the relevance to the question of whether Johnson & Johnson had breached the Code and they consider that they should be ignored.
In regards to the end statement, they noted that Irish Breeze consider that it implied that Johnson’s wipes performed better than WaterWipes as regards skin irritation and nappy rash and that this had not been substantiated by the results of a PH reading, thereby alleging a breach of 4.33 of the Code. In reply, the advertiser considered that Irish Breeze have been unable to point to anything misleading within the advertisement, therefore, they have been forced to rely on alleged implied claims. They said that there was no ambiguity in the advertising and therefore no need to read in an implied claim. They said that the claims within the advertisement were perfectly clear and were substantiated.
In regards to the complaint that the advertisement had unfairly attacked, discredited or denigrated the WaterWipes product, particularly the end statement, they considered that Irish Breeze had relied on insinuation as the basis of their complaint. They noted that Irish Breeze considered that the statement demonstrated that the WaterWipes product was not fit for purpose and presented a considerable risk of irritating a baby’s skin and causing nappy rash, therefore, attacking, discrediting or denigrating, not only their product, but also their trademarks and the company itself. They did not consider that Irish Breeze had provided an explanation for this belief and they considered that they had made an assumption which was nowhere near adequate to justify that the claim had such a wide-ranging and harmful effect. They said that it was more plausible that the advertisement meant what it said – that babies’ natural skin PH was about 5.5, that research had shown that the ideal baby skincare product should have a PH as close as possible to that as this helped to protect from irritation and nappy rash, that Johnson’s wipes have a PH level of about 5.5, that WaterWipes have a PH of about 8 and that consumers were invited to think about that and to consider this advantage of the Johnson & Johnson product.
They noted that Irish Breeze cited comments on social media that supported their allegations, however, they had not quoted specific comments concerning the perception of WaterWipes among consumers. They said that the advertisement did not say that WaterWipes were not gentle on babies’ skin, however, even if it had, they considered that consumer opinion would be irrelevant as to whether the claim was substantiated and that this was a matter for controlled scientific studies, not opinion. They said that even if the claim were about consumer opinion, it would need to be gathered through a formal, systematic survey, not by way of a sweep of below-the-line online comments. They considered that the comments appeared to have no purpose other than to cast aspersions on Johnson & Johnson.
Finally they said that their claims were specific, narrow, substantiated regardless of the implications inferred by Irish Breeze and of social media comments and were therefore compliant with the Code.
Conclusion
Complaint upheld in part.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaints and the advertisers’ response together with the information provided by both parties. The Committee noted that Irish Breeze referred to the comments on Facebook to the video in order to show the level of concern that had been raised about their WaterWipes product. The Committee did not, however, consider that a sample of comments of this size could be considered as representing consumer opinion as such opinions should only be sought by way of a consumer survey.
The Committee considered that the phrasing of the advertisement could be considered as implying that a baby skincare product that did not have a PH level of around 5.5 could lead to skin irritation and nappy rash.
The Committee considered that the impression created by the advertisement, in particular the use of the statement “Oh wow, makes you think” together with the earlier statement “Research has shown that ideal baby skin products should have a PH as close as possible to baby’s natural skin PH of about 5.5, as this helps to protect from skin irritation and nappy rash” was that a consumer should “think” before purchasing the WaterWipes product due to the implication that they may not be as effective as the Johnson’s product at protecting baby’s skin from irritation and nappy rash. In the circumstances the Committee considered that the advertisement, when taken as a whole and in context, was in breach of Sections 4.1 and 4.4.
Complaint upheld.
In relation to the complaint that the advertisement had unfairly attacked, discredited and denigrated the WaterWipes product, the Complaints Committee noted that while the advertisement had called the product into question, they did not consider that it had unfairly attacked, discredited or denigrated their product and therefore did not consider that the advertising was in breach of Section 4.34 of the Code.
Complaint not upheld.
