Can Advertising Be Diverse Without Being Discriminatory? – Advertising, Marketing & Branding

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) decision to uphold two
complaints against Colgate-Palmolive’s TV ad for Sanex Skin
Therapy (20^th August 2025) would suggest that even when
advertisers try to be inclusive, with diverse casting, they often
end up being found to have caused serious or widespread
offence.

For those who missed the lather-splattered headlines, the ad
opened on two black women, their skin depicted as cracked or clawed
by invisible fingernails. Cue the solemn voice-over: “To those
who scratch day and night…”. Thirty seconds and one patented
amino-acid complex later, we cut to a white woman luxuriating under
a steamy shower while the voice-over promises “24-hour
hydration feel” and on-screen text reassures us that
“RELIEF COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS A SHOWER”.

The ASA decided that far from cleansing the nation’s
epidermis, the ad had washed up an offensive racial stereotype. By
juxtaposing uncomfortable, problem skin exclusively with darker
tones and revealing healthy, hydrated derma only once the palette
had lightened, the spot all but scribbled “before = black,
after = white” across the nation’s flatscreens. Two
complaints were enough to get the watchdog scratching an itch of
suspected discrimination. Having inspected the evidence under its
regulatory magnifying glass, the ASA concluded the execution
breached BCAP Code rule 4.2 for being likely to cause serious or
widespread offence on grounds of race. In short: Sanex tried to
sell inclusivity, but the message left viewers feeling distinctly
excluded.

Colgate-Palmolive and Clearcast argued that the ad merely
dramatised dryness and itching in a stylised way, that nobody’s
melanin was meant to be the punch-line, and that diversity boxes
had been faithfully ticked. The ASA was having none of it. Intent,
meet Impact: one can be squeaky-clean, but the other can still
leave a nasty mark on the bathroom tiles.

Sanex: scratching the surface of
stereotypes.

To be honest, when I first watched the ad, I wasn’t sure why
it would cause so much offence. I therefore asked three colleagues
who are black for their opinion. Two are female, one is male, and
all three are in their twenties and either qualified solicitors or
training to be a solicitor. Their responses fascinated me, serving
as a reminder that if you are not a member of a specific group that
is subject to discrimatory treatment, it’s difficult, if not
impossible, to really understand the impact of certain tropes.
These were their observations:

• The ad’s opening scenes are abrupt and jarring, with harsh
  lighting and dramatic music, creating a negative and unsettling
  effect.




• Negative imagery (itchy, dry, flaky skin) is primarily depicted
  using black models, while positive, healthy skin is shown on a
  white model.




• The portrayal of skin conditions on black models taps into
  harmful stereotypes about “dry/ashy” black skin, which
  can be a source of embarrassment or shame.




• The contrast between the suffering of black models and the
  calm, pristine appearance of the white model reinforces problematic
  before/after and aspirational dynamics.




• The ad’s production choices (close-ups, exaggerated
  scratching, harsh color grading) amplify distress on black skin and
  position white skin as the ideal.




• The ad could have been less offensive if the same model or a
  more balanced, diverse cast was used throughout.




• All three agree the ad was insensitive and offensive, and
  support the ASA’s decision to intervene and recommend
  re-editing.

The ruling is more than a slap on the wrist with a damp loofah.
First, it reaffirms that the ASA will not hesitate to pour cold
water on executions that place protected characteristics on the
wrong side of a “before/after” divide – no matter
how inadvertent the slight. Second, it reminds creatives that
diversity isn’t a palette you can dip into selectively:
representation without equitable portrayal is just window dressing
(or, in this case, shower-screen dressing). Finally, it highlights
that even a brand whose entire USP is “healthy skin for
everybody” can trip over its own strapline if the visual
grammar sends a different signal.

Will Sanex sales nosedive? Unlikely. Controversy, like
exfoliation, can paradoxically leave brands looking brighter in the
short term. But the longer-term residue can be harder to rinse
away. Consumers have elephantine memories when it comes to
campaigns that suggest their skin – literal or metaphorical
– needs “fixing” more than the next
person’s.

So what should advertisers take into the next creative
brainstorm (along with the biscuits and the mood boards)?

1. Check your “before” pictures. If the
   problem is always illustrated by the same demographic, your
   “after” won’t save you.




2. Interrogate your palette. The camera never
   lies, but it can certainly imply. Ask whether the grading, lighting
   or model sequence creates an unintended hierarchy.




3. Diversity does not equal immunity. A mixed
   cast isn’t a get-out-of-ASA-jail-free card. It’s only stage
   one.

Meanwhile, somewhere at Colgate HQ, an emergency team is
probably story-boarding a follow-up spot featuring a rainbow of
skin tones, each glowing like freshly waxed marble. My humble
suggestion: perhaps ditch the “before/after” trope
altogether and celebrate real-world skin exactly as it shows up
– cracked, smooth, freckled, melanin-rich, melanin-light and
everything in between. Your product can still be the hero; it just
doesn’t need to imply that some complexions are the
villain.

And if you absolutely must do a transformation narrative, try
starting everyone in the same shower. We all sing off-key under
those echoey acoustics, after all. Now that’s inclusivity you
can take to the bank – or at least to the bathroom.

In the end, however, it comes back to the conclusion that was
reached by another black colleague, AJ Wynter, writing about the controversy
caused by a Heinz ad last October. The Heinz ad caused offence by
showing the wedding of a mixed race couple but where the black
bride’s father was apparently absent. AJ asked, “Will
brands take this as an opportunity to embrace diversity
authentically, or will they tread the line of performative
representation? More crucially, will the voices that need to be
amplified – the voices from the communities being depicted -
finally be heard?”

Sadly, the answer appears to be ‘not yet’. And there is
no soft soaping that particular irritation.

View Source

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.