J&J Employs L’Oreal-Did-It-So-Why-Can’t-We Defense In NAD Case
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
The National Advertising Division recommends that Johnson & Johnson discontinue and modify claims for its Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair Moisturizer (Night), rejecting a consumer perception study that J&J claims is modeled after a L’Oreal study the watchdog group praised in a November 2010 case.
Johnson & Johnson “strongly disagrees” with the National Advertising Division’s position on a study backing claims for the firm’s Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair Moisturizer (Night), which it maintains is nearly identical to a study L’Oreal used successfully in defense of Maybelline advertising a year ago.
In NAD’s report, announced Jan. 17, the Council of Better Business Bureaus division zeroed in on print advertising for the Neutrogena product, including the firm’s claim that “Most anti-wrinkle creams disappear long before the wrinkles. Until now. Introducing Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair.”
According to the advertising watchdog group, the claim implies that the moisturizer can eliminate wrinkles, or make them disappear. NAD brought the challenge against J&J as part of its routine monitoring program.
In defending its ad, J&J/Neutrogena referred NAD to a consumer perception survey it conducted, polling 204 women age 35 and older who regularly use an anti-aging moisturizer and shop in the type of outlet where Neutrogena is sold. The advertiser says the results demonstrate that the vast majority of consumers interpret its claim as a wrinkle-reduction message rather than a promise to eliminate wrinkles altogether.
The firm adds that its survey was modeled after one invoked by L’Oreal when advertising for Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Makeup came under NAD’s scrutiny in November 2010. In that case, the independent regulator reviewed L’Oreal’s “reliable” and “well-controlled” survey and determined that consumers generally do not believe the Maybelline product will literally erase signs of aging. Just 14% of respondents were under that impression (Also see "Maybelline Substantiates Anti-Aging Claims In NAD Case" - HBW Insight, 6 Dec, 2010.).
J&J extended its survey participants a similarly structured, closed-ended question, asking what statement best describes how their wrinkles would look after one week of using the Neutrogena moisturizer, based on the firm’s advertisement. The “overwhelming response,” NAD acknowledges, was that wrinkles would be reduced but not eliminated (65% vs. 7%).
However, unlike in the L’Oreal/Maybelline survey, the multiple-choice answers to J&J/Neutrogena’s question were not rotated – that is, the “reduces wrinkles” statement was consistently listed first – which could have influenced the results, NAD says. The watchdog has noted previously, it says, that rotating answers “is important for closed-ended questions.”
NAD also points out that in the portion of the survey consisting of open-ended questions, roughly the same number of respondents cited wrinkle elimination as the ad’s takeaway message as cited wrinkle reduction.
According to the regulator, it is the phrasing of J&J’s ad – “Most anti-wrinkle creams disappear long before the wrinkles. Until now.” – that suggests the opposite will be true with the Neutrogena product, that wrinkles will disappear before the product runs out.
Whereas L’Oreal/Maybelline’s advertising included “erase” claims that “playfully echoed” the product name without planting lofty expectations in consumers’ minds, J&J/Neutrogena’s ad could lead consumers to expect a dramatic anti-aging benefit, particularly in the context of its other claims, NAD suggests.
A One-Week Wrinkle Solution?
J&J/Neutrogena’s ad for Rapid Wrinkle Repair featured two other express performance claims – “It has Accelerated Retinol SA, which is the fastest retinol formula available” and “In fact, it’s clinically proven to smooth wrinkles in just one week.”
According to NAD, the latter claim lacks substantiating evidence.
The watchdog group holds that in comparison with prescription retinoic acid, topical retinol “has its limitations (i.e., it is 20 times less potent than retinoic acid, unstable and degrades easily into inactive metabolites). There is no mention,” NAD says, “of rapid results from the use of topical retinoids.”
The independent regulator also examined clinical studies J&J submitted in which Rapid Wrinkle Repair, another Neutrogena moisturizer and competing Olay products were tested for their effectiveness at treating visible facial aging, fine lines, undereye wrinkles, coarse cheek wrinkles and crow’s feet wrinkles.
After one week, the results for Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair were indeed most advanced; however, the most dramatic benefit was observed in reduction of fine lines and facial aging (including dryness/roughness and hyperpigmentation/tone). The product’s impact on wrinkles was significantly less pronounced, NAD notes.
Accordingly, NAD recommends that J&J modify its claim so as not to imply that its product will substantially reduce or eliminate wrinkles in one week, and to specify that Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair is most beneficial in treating photodamage and fine lines, rather than deeper wrinkles.
The firm should discontinue the claim “Most anti-wrinkle creams disappear long before the wrinkles. Until now,” NAD says.
J&J says it will take NAD’s recommendations into consideration when reviewing its advertising and planning for future campaigns. However, it maintains that the methodology and results of its consumer survey “warrant the same consideration as in the Maybelline case. In fact, the results were completely consistent with those in the Maybelline case,” the firm says.