Can Advertising Be Diverse Without Being Discriminatory?

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.