Beiersdorf criticised for misleading advertising claims for Nivea DNAge cream

Unsubstantiated product claims in advertising have come under criticism again from the UK’s Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), this time from personal care giant Beiersdorf.

Complaints were received about the advertising for an anti-aging product from Beiersdorf’s flagship brand Nivea.

The magazine advert contained the title ‘Face the future with firmer skin’ which the complainant said could mislead consumers into thinking the cream had long lasting effects, rather than just a temporary visible affect.

The ASA upheld this complaint and Beiersdorf said it would amend the claim to ‘Face the future with firmer ‘looking’ skin’.

In addition, the advert also claimed the product could ‘boost surface skin cell renewal leaving you with noticeably firmer looking skin’. The reader was then directed to a footnote that read ‘126 women agreed’.

The ASA agreed with the complainant that the lack of a reference for the sample size rendered the statistic misleading. Beiersdorf said it was a mistake, and that the advert should have communicated that out of 176 women 70 percent agreed.

ASA has said the advert can no longer appear in its current form.

Unilever’s Lynx Bullet does not objectify women

This is not the only personal care giant to come under the spotlight this week. Unilever’s campaign for its brand Lynx was brought to the attention of the ASA when members of the public claimed it was disrespectful to women.

Lynx Bullet was the focus of the campaign which included cinema adverts, a clip aired on the internet and various posters appearing on billboards and on the tube in London.

In keeping with the brand’s flirtatious image, the campaign featured the product enhancing the ‘pulling power’ of those wearing it, which a number of complainants found offensive to women.

One of the billboards ‘Wake up with more than a hangover – Pocket pulling power lynx bullet’ came under criticism for allegedly promoting casual sex and binge drinking.

However, the ASA came down in support of Unilever, noting that the cinema adverts were already restricted for viewing only around films that were not directed at children.

In addition, the ASA supported Unilever’s view that the adverts humorous style they were unlikely to push men to see women as sex objects.