Guthy Renker withstands formulation queries but must amend subscription clarity in ads

The UK watchdog received complaints on two issues for the Proactiv+ product advertising which featured several American celebrities endorsing the product.

The first complaint challenged whether the endorsements were misleading, because they believed that the celebrities were likely to have used the American formulation of the product, which contained an active ingredient not present in the UK formulation.

This complaint was dismissed completely after Guthy Renker provided evidence that the European formulation was sent to the celebrities for testing in this ad segment and that this is the one sold in the UK; with the ASA agreeing this was not misleading.

Misleading..?​

However, there was more debate over the second complaint which challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it did not make sufficiently clear that customers who purchased the product were signing up to a rolling monthly contract which renewed unless cancelled.

Guthy-Renker UK stated that the offer promoted in the ad was available through its ‘Proactiv+ Clear Skin Plan’ where deliveries are received every 90 days unless they opted to cancel their membership, which they could do at any time.

It added that the voice-over in the ad clearly stated that customers would receive a new supply of Proactiv+ every 90 days and that combined with on-screen text, made it clear that customers could cancel their supply of new products at any time.

Clarification​

The ASA noted that 14 minutes into the 30 minute presentation, viewers were informed of the products introductory price and that they would be committing to a rolling monthly contract, which renewed unless cancelled.

However, it stated that the rolling monthly contract was not mentioned again even though the presentation continued to refer to the products’ ‘special introductory offer’.

Because these details had only been disclosed on one occasion and at almost halfway through the presentation, the ASA concluded it had not been made sufficiently clear in the ad and that it was misleading.

Having told Guthy-Renker that its advertising should be changed to make the contract sufficiently clear, the manufacturer said it was willing to amend the ad, specifically at each point when the offer was made to viewers, making it clear that it was contingent upon consumers signing-up to ongoing shipments of the products.