HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Warner-Lambert Cool Mint Listerine toothpaste, mouthwash ads substantiated -- NAD.

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

WARNER-LAMBERT COOL MINT LISTERINE TOOTHPASTE, MOUTHWASH TV ADS SUBSTANTIATED, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus concluded in a Feb. 8 case report. NAD investigated the truth and accuracy of implied claims in the ads following a challenge by Crest manufacturer Procter & Gamble. P&G took issue with Warner-Lambert's Cool Mint Listerine toothpaste and mouthwash ads, claiming that they have "identical visual executions" and "conspire together to create an implied claim that the toothpaste is an effective antigingivitis agent." P&G supplied communication research to NAD to support its claims.

WARNER-LAMBERT COOL MINT LISTERINE TOOTHPASTE, MOUTHWASH TV ADS SUBSTANTIATED, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus concluded in a Feb. 8 case report. NAD investigated the truth and accuracy of implied claims in the ads following a challenge by Crest manufacturer Procter & Gamble. P&G took issue with Warner-Lambert's Cool Mint Listerine toothpaste and mouthwash ads, claiming that they have "identical visual executions" and "conspire together to create an implied claim that the toothpaste is an effective antigingivitis agent." P&G supplied communication research to NAD to support its claims.

Upon reviewing P&G's research and subsequent comments and studies supplied by Warner-Lambert, NAD found that while a "`carry over' message is, generally speaking, a possibility,...the communication studies submitted by P&G failed to support its contention that such carry-over had occurred in this case."

P&G's communication studies consisted of two consumer surveys, the case report states. In the first survey, the company showed participants a videotape of the toothpaste ad twice in a row and then asked a series of non-directed, open-ended and directed, open-ended questions as well as a closed-ended multiple choice question about the commercial. In the second study, participants were shown the mouthwash and toothpaste commercials back-to-back, twice, and then administered the same questionnaire used in the first study.

According to P&G, the first survey showed that 46% of respondents to the closed-ended questions felt that the phrase "`Listerine toothpaste kills germs/bacteria, and gives you healthier gums and helps prevent gum disease/gingivitis' best described the ad," NAD reported. The second survey found, P&G maintained, that 45% of respondents to the open-ended questions felt that "the main message of the Listerine toothpaste commercial was some sort of kills germs/gum health or gingivitis benefit message." In addition, 35% of participants claimed that the "power of prevention" tagline "delivers a gum health/gingivitis message for the toothpaste."

Referring to P&G's testing methods in its consumer survey, NAD determined that "leading and biased questions in a consumer perception study [are] not...sufficient to prove the existence of alleged implied claims contained in an advertisement." The watchdog agency added that the "de minimus results yielded from open-ended questions in a communication study are insufficient to prove that a false and misleading implied claim is being made."

In response to P&G's allegations, the case report states, Warner-Lambert asserted that its ad simply draws on the heritage of "the well-known Listerine mouthwash," positioning the toothpaste as "a new cavity-fighting toothpaste that `kills the germs that cause plaque.'"

The firm submitted its own communication/recall study indicating that 64% of consumers took away a "kills germs" message while 0% took away a "fights gingivitis" message, according to the NAD report. The mouthwash and toothpaste ads were developed by J. Walter Thompson, New York City.

In addition, Warner-Lambert maintained that the de minimus results from P&G's studies, which showed that consumers inferred a gingivitis/gum health claim for the toothpaste based on the ads for the mouthwash, were "not peculiar to the Listerine product and that it is likely that any dentrifice advertisement will result in a minimal take-away of this nature."

To support its claim that P&G's survey is biased, Warner-Lambert conducted a control study to determine whether the gingivitis/gum disease feedback was limited to Listerine or was typical in any ad for a dentrifice, the NAD report says. The firm employed a questionnaire almost identical to that used by P&G to determine takeaway claims from Crest and Colgate toothpaste ads. Warner-Lambert said that the results indicated a similar de minimus takeaway for a gingivitis message and non-specific gum disease and gum health claims, the case report states.

Pointing to P&G's study design, Warner-Lambert argued that "both the open-ended questions and the closed-ended question were biased and leading so as to invalidate the results" of the study. According to Lambert, the questions and repeated probes focused on purported gum-related comments, thus "signal[ling] to respondents that these are the most important responses that the interviewer is seeking," NAD reported. Also, the closed-ended question did not provide respondents with an alternative containing the ad's express message that the toothpaste "kills germs that cause plaque," the firm added.

For P&G's second survey, Warner-Lambert contended that "the design and execution of the study were fatally flawed" since the "way in which the respondents viewed the two ads did not reflect the manner in which the ads are or would be shown in a real-life context," according to NAD's report. The mouthwash and toothpaste ads are shown in alternating four-week cycles and are "never shown back-to-back," Warner-Lambert pointed out.

In making its determination, NAD agreed with Warner-Lambert's criticisms of P&G's studies. The watch dog group cautioned Warner-Lambert, however, to "take great care in assuring that these ads are not shown back-to-back nor in repeated close proximity to one another."

P&G also took issue with Warner-Lambert's claim in the mouthwash ad that "Listerine is the only brand clinically proven to help prevent the gum disease gingivitis." P&G argued that the claim is misleading since its Crest Gum Care toothpaste has been "clinically proven to fight gingivitis." The firm added that the copy accompanying the mouthwash ad -- "leading non-prescription mouthwashes" -- is not "sufficient to limit the scope of this broad claim."

The watchdog agency again disagreed with P&G, noting that "in the absence of consumer perception studies to the contrary, NAD has little concern that people will be misled into believing that the `brand' reference in the mouthwash ad will be thought to be referring to any oral care product."

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS002502

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel