Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited - Colgate Maxfresh
Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: Industry Member
The FTCR panel viewed the advertisement (in Tamil) and considered the complainant’s and the advertiser’s response for Review.
Claim - `Gives unbeatable freshness’ and `Unbeatable freshness equals Colgate Maxfresh Blue’
The FTCR panel reviewed the complaint regarding the claims made in the advertisement for `Colgate Maxfresh Blue’ - “Gives Unbeatable Freshness”, and “Unbeatable Freshness Equals Colgate Maxfresh Blue”.
The complainant argued that these claims were misleading, particularly with respect to how “freshness” is defined and measured.
The FTCR panel noted that the term “unbeatable freshness” referred specifically to the immediate sensory experience during and shortly after brushing, such as cooling, tingling, a clean feeling, and pleasant taste. The FTCR panel discussed that the advertisement does not claim long lasting freshness or any clinical or therapeutic benefit. The complainant’s definition of freshness based solely on the removal of odour causing germs is too narrow. In this context, freshness is a subjective sensory benefit, which does not require clinical substantiation through laboratory tests.
The FTCR panel referred to the two independent consumer research studies submitted in support of the claims. The first was a Product Performance Audit (PPA) conducted over two weeks in a blind in home usage format. This showed that Colgate Maxfresh Blue was preferred over other gel based toothpastes, including the advertiser’s own red gel toothpaste and the competition product, on freshness attributes. The second was a comparative study conducted in a controlled setting, where Colgate Maxfresh Blue was again rated significantly better, versus the competition product on freshness experience.
The FTCR panel further referred to the complainant’s submissions, which focused on clinical methods of measuring freshness, such as odour testing using instruments and expert panels, and cited literature on the unreliability of consumer self-assessment in the context of oral malodour. They also referenced a study by trained expert consumer panel which found parity between Closeup Red Gel Toothpaste and Colgate MaxFresh Blue in terms of freshness during and after brushing.
The FTCR panel was of the view that this evidence presented on expert assessments and clinical methods, was not relevant to the consumer perceived sensory claims made in the advertiser’s advertisement. The complainant has not provided any consumer research studies to counter the advertiser’s findings. Therefore, the additional material submitted for review did not provide sufficient grounds to reverse the original decision of the Fast Track Complaints Panel (FTCP).
Based on this assessment, the FTCR panel did not consider the claims, “Gives Unbeatable Freshness”, and “Unbeatable Freshness Equals Colgate Maxfresh Blue”, to be objectionable. The claims are not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. The FTCR panel concluded that the earlier decision of complaint being Not Upheld stands on Review.
Objection – Visual Disparagement of Competition Product that represents the Closeup Red Gel Toothpaste
The FTCR panel reviewed the objection regarding the advertisement depicting red gel toothpaste being pushed away by blue cooling crystals. The concern is that this visual unfairly targets and disparages the
complainant’s product.
After careful consideration, the FTCR panel noted that red gel toothpastes are widely available in the market, including a red gel variant from the advertiser itself - Colgate MaxFresh Red. Since the advertiser also sells a red gel toothpaste and the depiction is not linked to any specific brand, the FTCR panel concluded that the visual does not amount to unfair disparagement.
The visual is deemed a common advertising technique used to emphasize a product’s key benefit, in this case, the freshness of Colgate MaxFresh Blue. The dramatized effect of blue crystals pushing away the red gel toothpaste was interpreted as a metaphor highlighting this feature.
The complainant argues that the red gel toothpaste shown closely resembles their CloseUp Red Gel toothpaste, especially due to the packaging with a red body, white neck, and red cap. They also stated CloseUp’s strong position in the gel toothpaste segment in Tamil Nadu, where the advertisement aired. However, the advertiser counters that their own red gel variant shares a similar packaging design, stating that such pack designs are common in the market.
Based on these observations, the FTCR panel concluded that the red colored pack shown in the advertisement does not unfairly target any specific product/brand, and therefore is not in contravention of Chapter IV of the ASCI Code. The earlier decision of complaint being Not Upheld stands on Review.
