ARB finds misleading claims in Dettol soap advertising
The Advertising Regulatory Boards ruled that some Dettol soap claims can be misleading.
Image: Mike Dibetsoe
The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has scrutinised the packaging of certain Dettol bar soaps following a complaint from rival Colgate-Palmolive, which alleged misleading advertising.
The ARB found that the wording on the front of the packaging of three of the bar soaps is misleading to consumers, but it turned down a complaint against claims that Dettol Original, which offers a 12-hour protective shield, was also misleading.
The directorate of the ARB found that Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals (the advertiser) provided sufficient scientific evidence supporting the claim that this product indeed offers a 12-hour protective shield.
The rest of the complaint relates to the front-of-pack claims, which include “100% Better Odour Protection,” “100% Better Skin Protection” and “3x Cleansing".
These claims were explained on the back of each packaging, which says the soap’s performance was compared with water only, not other soaps.
Colgate-Palmolive argued that the front-of-pack statements may mislead consumers, who will not ordinarily read the back of the packaging.
It says that water and a hygiene bar soap do not share similar characteristics.
Even if both can be used for cleansing, their composition, function and nature differ materially.
Colgate-Palmolive submitted that South African consumers are accustomed to comparisons between soaps, not between soap and water.
In its challenge to the Dettol Original claim “12h Protective Shield,” Colgate-Palmolive said this is misleading as no scientific evidence is provided on the product to sustain this claim.
The advertiser, who is not a member of the ARB and, therefore, not subject to its jurisdiction, nonetheless, responded to the complaint.
It argued that the claims on the soap bars simply compare the effect of washing with Dettol bar soap versus not using soap at all, which it describes as a “before and after” comparison rather than a comparison between products.
Coming to its conclusion on the rest of the complaint, the ARB found that although the explanations were present, they were not clear enough to change what shoppers might think when reading the front of the pack.
“The advertiser has, therefore, not established that the average consumer would expect, or readily understand, a “100% better” or “3x cleansing” claim to be based on a comparison with water alone," it said.
It instructed ARB members not to accept or publish any advertising for Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals bearing the claims “100% Better Odour Protection,” “100% Better Skin Protection,” and “3x Cleansing” where qualified by stating they are better than water.