Irreplaceable.

Advanced Night Repair

Protective Recovery Complex

Only from Estee Lauder

Just think. If you had started using Night Repair in 1982, your skin wouldn't look 15 years older today. Advanced Night Repair has stood the test of time because it helps your skin do the same. Repairs the past by speeding recovery from UV and environmental damage. Protects the future by improving the way skin performs overall.

Advanced Night Repair. Never duplicated. Never surpassed. Irreplaceable.

ESTEE LAUDER

PROF REGAN

This advert, for a repairing night cream, had to be withdrawn when a complaint was made to the Advertising Standards Authority. And the Advertising Standards Authority found that the main evidence to support the product's claim of making someone look 15 years younger was based on the fact that it contained a product to protect against ultra violet light. And you do have to ask yourself - how much sun exposure are you going to get at night when you're wearing a night cream?

ESTEE LAUDER'S RESPONSE

"The Advanced Night Repair advert in question was run almost a decade ago and does not represent our current claims for this product. In addition, we disagree with Professor Regan's interpretation and representation of both the ASA's decision and the product and how it works."

ASA RULING (May 1999)

"Adjudication: Complaint upheld.

The advertisers said they intended the advertisement to convey that continued use of their product could lead to better skin appearance than would be obtained if the product were not used. They explained that exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun was the main cause of environmentally induced skin ageing. They sent several abstracts of published peer-reviewed papers to show that exposure to UV radiation caused that type of ageing, called 'photoageing'. The advertisers also sent the results of a clinical trial that showed their product could reduce exposure to UV radiation by a factor of four. The Authority noted that, in the trial, the product was applied to subjects 15 minutes before they were exposed to UV radiation. It accepted that the advertisers' product, when applied 15 minutes before exposure to the sun, could reduce UV exposure by a factor of four. The Authority nevertheless considered that, in the context of an advertisement for a product called 'Advanced Night Repair', the claims gave the impression that the product could retrospectively fight the effects of skin ageing even if applied at night, when the user was unlikely to be exposed to UV radiation. It noted the advertisers had sent a study of high dose UV on albino mice in which the mice had had factor six sunscreen applied just before chronic irradiation; the study showed that the sunscreen enhanced recovery from chronic UV damage. The Authority understood from expert advice, however, that to extrapolate the results of the study to humans was unacceptable. It noted the advertisers had also sent the results of a 10 week and a 12 week study on the cosmetic effects of the cream; they claimed the studies proved the cream improved hydration and elasticity and reduced the appearance of superficial lines. The Authority took expert advice and understood that the studies did not prove that the cream would, over a 15 year period, reduce the effects of ageing; other effects, such as smoking, skin type and extent of sun exposure, would also play a role and to accurately predict the benefit of using the sunscreen would be impossible. It welcomed the advertisers' assurance that they had stopped using the advertisement and asked them, in future, to avoid the implication that the product protected against skin ageing except by protecting the skin from UV radiation and not to repeat the '15 year' anti-ageing claim."

PROF REGAN

Now this is another ad where it really pays to read the small print. When I first looked at it I thought it was telling me that if I use this conditioner I would have 95% less breakage of my hair, compared to using another conditioner. But the small print states that the laboratory tests have demonstrated 95% less breakage of hair compared to using a shampoo alone, ie no conditioner at all.

L'OREAL'S RESPONSE

"All L'Oreal products are the result of a rigorous research and development process, and the benefits they offer are substantiated by scientific evidence.

L'Oreal Elvive Nutri Repair Conditioner is an extremely effective conditioner that prevents breakage by smoothing and effectively detangling hair and thus delivering exactly what the claim says: 95% less breakage. It is an industry standard to test conditioners against a classic shampoo to demonstrate the full benefits of the product as part of our daily hair care routine. Our advertisement doesn't make any comparative claims against other conditioners. We proactively state the exact test that is carried out in order to be informative to our consumers.

L'Oreal Elvive Nutri Repair Conditioner advertisement was fully approved by both the BACC (Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre) and the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) - the UK's advertising pre-clearance and regulatory authorities respectively - on the strength of the technical substantiation of our claims."

Regaine for women

Growing Concerns

1 in 4 women in the UK suffer from thinning hair

Growing Confidence

New Regaine for Women is clinically proven to help grow thicker hair.

Thinning hair is worrying, upsetting and damages confidence. Now at last there's something that actually works specifically for women. While thickening shampoos only make your hair look thicker, Regaine for Women gets to the root of the problem, stimulating re-growth by nourishing follicles, helping thousands of women to grow thicker, lusher and stronger hair. Concerns dealt with, confidence regained.

Always read the label. Regaine for Women contains minoxidil.

Now this advert is actually for a licensed medicine, and it can be difficult to know the difference between a cosmetic and medicine, and what you may need to look for is their "always read the label" sign and the fact that the medicine will state what is the active ingredient.

The fact that it's a medicine means if the licensing authority have investigated the scientific claims that the product is making.

Of course, you must remember as well that the medicine may not work for you, but as a medicine it has undergone scientific trials.

PROF REGAN

Now this advert was withdrawn after a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority. And the ASA looked into the evidence that Boots had for stating that the product would provide a sleeker silhouette. And what they noted was that the anti-cellulite cream in this product didn't appear to have any better effect on removing cellulite than an ordinary moisturiser.

BOOTS'S RESPONSE

"Boots disagrees with the ASA's findings on this advert. The judgement shows that the ASA have doubts about the value of data from customer's own perception in real life usage. We however think that our customers know their bodies better than anyone else and 78% of women who tested No7 SuperSlim say they have seen positive results in two weeks and 89% saw significant improvement after four weeks.

While we are disappointed that the ASA have not supported the claims on this advert, we are delighted that our customers find the product an effective and appealing one."

ASA RULING (September 2005)

"Adjudication: Complaint upheld.

Boots said an independent, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study was undertaken to determine the product's efficacy. They sent details of how the study was carried out, its results and the conclusions drawn. The product's efficacy was assessed using two methods: measurement of thigh volume and skin roughness and the self-evaluation of the study's participants. The placebo was a standard moisturiser. Boots said the study's main findings were that 78% of participants after two weeks' product use and 89% of participants after four weeks' product use reported that their silhouette appeared sleeker, slimmed and smoothed, and that after four weeks' product use there was a statistically significant decrease in thigh volume and a statistically significant smoothing of the skin profile. Boots believed the study showed that the product delivered a measurable and noticeable change to the appearance of the thighs and had greater benefits and effects than a standard moisturiser. They said the product did not have a fundamental impact on skin physiology and did not have an effect on cellulite itself but was able to smooth and modify the surface of the thigh. They said consumers perceived that anti-cellulite products had a cosmetic effect and changed the dimpled appearance of the skin where cellulite was present; Boots believed consumers did not expect anti-cellulite products to have an effect on the fatty deposits below the skin's surface.

We took expert advice. The expert said a moisturiser was not capable of affecting the silhouette or decreasing thigh volume; the placebo, a standard moisturiser, was therefore equivalent to no treatment. He pointed out that 73% of the participants who used the placebo reported that their silhouette appeared sleeker, slimmed and smoothed after four weeks' product use; he said that meant that the benefit of "Super Slim" over a standard moisturiser, or no treatment, was slight. He advised that the measurement techniques showed that, after four weeks' product use, 64% of the participants who used 'Super Slim' and 50% of the participants who used the placebo had decreased in thigh volume; he said that again showed that the benefit of Boots's product over a standard moisturiser, or no treatment, was slight. The expert said strong placebo effects were common in cosmetic trials because self-assessment was not strong evidence; independent measurements usually found only small differences between the product's effect and no treatment. He said the mean change in thigh volume for the group who used Boots's product was -1.56% of the starting volume; he considered that such a small difference would not be detectable to consumers. He pointed out that some participants who used Boots's product for four weeks increased in thigh volume.

We considered that the claim 'A SLEEKER SILHOUETTE IN 2 WEEKS', in conjunction with the photograph and the claim 'ANTI-CELLULITE BALM', implied the product created a slimmer body shape by reducing cellulite, or its appearance. We noted the claim 'A SLEEKER SILHOUETTE IN 2 WEEKS' was based on consumers' perceptions after two weeks' product use; the measurements in the clinical study were taken after four weeks. We considered that user perceptions were not robust enough to substantiate the '2 WEEKS' claim and told Boots not to make similar claims, in future ads, that were based solely on consumers' perceptions. We noted the clinical study established that there was a natural variation in the volume of participants' left and right thighs before product use. Given that, we considered that the changes in thigh volume after use of Boots's product were unlikely to be detected by most consumers. We noted a significant number of participants who used the placebo decreased in thigh volume and reported that their silhouette appeared sleeker, slimmed and smoothed. We considered that the product's effects on body shape and the appearance of the skin after two and four weeks were not discernibly greater than the effects produced by a moisturiser, which was not able to modify the silhouette. We considered that the claim 'A SLEEKER SILHOUETTE', in conjunction with the photograph and the claim 'ANTI-CELLULITE BALM', suggested changes more dramatic than a moisturising effect. We concluded that the claims were misleading and told Boots not to repeat them.

The claims breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies)."