Sanex has joined the long list of major brands facing advertising bans for campaigns that are clearly insensitive and lack both cultural and emotional intelligence. Yet, it could all have been very easily avoided.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a Sanex shower gel TV advert for perpetuating offensive racial stereotypes.
The ad depicted black women with visibly dry, cracked, and itchy skin in the “before” scenes, while white women were shown with smooth, hydrated skin in the “after” scenes following use of the product.
What action has the ASA taken? Well, they banned it of course. The ASA argued that the advert could be interpreted as suggesting white skin is superior to black skin. They were right. That is precisely what it does.
How did Sanex respond to the ban? They were surprised, in a Homer Simpson way. Sanex’s parent company, Colgate-Palmolive, defended the ad as a “before and after” depiction meant to show product efficacy across diverse skin types.
Clearcast, the body responsible for approving TV ads, also supported the ad’s intent, stating it demonstrated inclusivity. “I intended to scare the perpetrators off when waving my gun, but I didn’t intend for one of the bullets to fatally wound one of them, super soz. Am I forgiven?” No, because there was a clear failure to anticipate the consequences of behaving so recklessly.
The responses from both Sanex and Clearcast focus on the ‘intent’ rather than the ‘offense’ caused. This can and clearly has come across as dismissive of legitimate concerns and, frankly, ignorant and tone deaf.
This incident underscores the critical importance of cultural sensitivity and inclusive storytelling in brand communications. While Sanex may have intended to showcase product effectiveness for all skin types, the execution failed to consider how visual contrasts and narrative framing could be interpreted through a racial lens.
From a reputation management perspective, this reflects badly on Sanex. It is a real-time case study on how brand messaging can unintentionally reinforce harmful stereotypes. This can and may already be having a significant impact on the brand in several ways:
* Negative brand perception that will likely be escalated as more and more media outlets amplify the story
* Erosion of consumer trust
* Decline in sales
* Uptick in market spend in an attempt to win back consumer trust and loyalty
Unintended or intentional offence caused – it makes no difference. The case of Sanex and the plethora of other brands who have also found themselves in the firing line (M&S, Zara, Swatch) should never get themselves in such a position in the first place. It is avoidable, they just need to rethink their approval processes.
* Establish an inclusive team of creatives and PRs to ensure diverse voices are involved at every stage of the campaign so that they can anticipate and prevent similar missteps from happening again.
* Initiate a transparent review process that audits current campaign practices.
* Hire people who were constantly question everything – EV-ERY-THING. Campaign makers, whether in advertising or PR, must always be thinking about how their message can be both received and interpreted. Having people who always ask ‘Why?’ and ‘So, what?’ are critical within the planning team.
Need expert branding advice before launching your next PR or advertising campaign? Email me on paul@clearlypr.co.uk
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbrand.substack.com
