ASCI upholds complaints against 43 of 50 ads

12 Mar,2013

By A Correspondent


In December 2013, the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of ASCI, upheld complaints against 43 out of 50 advertisements. ASCI’s National Advertising Monitoring
Service (NAMS) has been very proficient in tracking down the misleading claims made by advertisers in various sectors, which include HUL’s New Rin, New Clear anti-dandruff shampoo, Comfort Fabric Conditioner, Dabur India’s Oxy Life Bleach, Nurture Health Care’s Hairten Hair Oil, Kesh King Hair Care Range, Keya Seths Aromatherapy, Clintech Medical & Aesthetic Center, Kangra Herb Pvt Ltd, Rediscover – Laser, Skin, Slimming & Ayurvedic Clinic etc.


As per the complaint, the TVC claims that “New Rin is the only detergent powder in India which gives freedom from yellowness and gives shining whiteness”. This claim is qualified by a super stating “Perception of yellowness removed through patented technology”. The use of “patented technology” does not mean that the same benefit of “giving freedom from yellowness” cannot be claimed by using any other technology. The super does not provide the details of the independent agency which conducted the tests. In absence of independent technical data, this claim is false and misleading. The advertisement promoting the New Rin is based on the concept that “After repeated washing, clothes turn dull and yellow”. The said concept is not completely correct and is in fact misleading consumers. The visual showing the comparison between New Rin and other detergent powder is qualified by a super which states “creative representation of yellowness removal”. This in effect means that the shots showing the shirt washed with the other detergent and the shirt washed with New Rin cannot be replicated into reality. This is incorrect and misleads the consumers.


New Clear’s TVC claims that it “Is the best anti-dandruff shampoo in the country”, with a super “Based on clinical studies, microkill & ZOI data”. This superiority claim needs to be substantiated with technical and comparative data, and with details of tests/trials reports from an independent recognized testing institution. The claim, “Preferred choice of 9 out of 10 users”, is ambiguous. Where on one hand the claim does not clarify the parameters for which the Clear shampoo is preferred, the claim on the other hand is being used by Clear in its TVC. This claim is qualified by a super stating, “Based on consumer study”. This super does not state the source of the study and nor does it state the date on which the said study was conducted. The super, “Based on consumer study”, is not of adequate size and duration, and blurred so as to mislead the consumers.


In other cases as well, the CCC considered the additional data provided by the advertiser and concluded that the earlier decision of the FTCC stands. The complaint was upheld. During the month of December, the CCC also received complaints against 6 advertisements. The complaints were received against the advertisements of Ceat Ltd’s ‘Ceat Tyres’, Skin Alive’s ‘Forever Young’, Kovai Medical Center and Hospital’s ‘Effective Treatment for Thyroid Disorders & Cancer’, Gillette India LTD’s ‘Oral-B Cross Action Pro-Health toothbrush’, Clinic Dermatech’s ‘Beauty Solutions for Skin Problems’, Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd’s ‘Pantene Pro-V shampoo’. However, as these advertisements did not contravene ASCI’s codes or guidelines, the complaints were not upheld.


Post a Comment 

One response to “ASCI upholds complaints against 43 of 50 ads”

  1. thats good news, there are lot of misleading ads these days popping up every day

Today's Top Stories