ADventures in Law

Home | ADventures in Law

A few of the recent National Advertising Division’s (NAD) cases have us pausing. This happens when we see NAD recommending changes to ads we would have comfortably greenlit. It reminds us that advertising review is a good deal of subjective art and not all objective science. But we do like to point out where NAD is giving guidance in areas some might see as gray. Today’s example involves beauty ads and how the pictures of the products being used do or don’t match the ad copy claims.&nbsp;

core/paragraph

<a href="https://bbbprograms.org/media/newsroom/decisions/dreame" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Here</a> Dyson challenged claims made by Dreame Technology for its Dazzle Hair Styler and the Miracle Pro Hair Dryer. The products were claimed to dry shoulder-length hair in two minutes. Elsewhere there were disclaimers or additional language that short hair could be dried in one minute and long hair dried in four minutes, with all the usual caveats about variability for thickness and texture. The ads all showed a woman with very long hair luxuriously cascading to her lower back. One ad claimed the dryer was fast, durable and powerful and “dried hair in just two minutes.” There was a disclaimer that the time varies based on the thickness and length of hair. That NAD found this to be insufficient was no surprise. Other ads said hair dries in two minutes, with smaller text saying this was for shoulder-length hair.

What flipped our wig was the last ad, where the claim itself was “Dazzle dries shoulder-length hair in two minutes.” NAD surprisingly also recommended this presentation be modified. While acknowledging the claim itself mentioned shoulder-length hair, NAD said that because longer hair was depicted and the ad was silent about the drying time for longer hair, some reasonable consumers might take away an unsupported message that long hair also can be dried in two minutes. In many cases, NAD wants the claim itself to include the key details. In this case, it did – the claim language regarding drying time specifically identified shoulder-length hair. We would submit that any reasonable person would consider the model in the accompanying picture to have hair much longer than shoulder length. The general hair-drying population is likely well aware longer hair takes a longer time to dry. What we infer from this is that NAD basically is saying the photo in this case could reasonably be understood as a demo and even though the words specially mention a shorter hairdo, consumers looking quickly would innately take away a speed claim for the hair shown. &nbsp;While not sure if this is an outlier or a new trend, the lesson here is that when reviewing written performance claims connected with a photo of the product in use, pause to see if there is a possible disconnect between the text and the visual image, recognizing that NAD may well put more weight on what the picture might say to consumers than the literal words.&nbsp;

NAD Issues a Head-Scratcher over Disconnect Between Pictures and Claims