Sonicare 'Charging Case' Comparison To Oral-B Loses Spark In Ad Review Appeal
Executive Summary
Council of Better Business Bureaus appeals board agrees with all but one recommendation NAD made in review of claims for Philips' Sonicare DiamondClean power toothbrush challenged by P&G. In appeal by both firms, panel disagreed with investigative arm on comparative claim about toothbrush travel cases.
The appellate round of a Council of Better Business Bureaus industry self-regulation review of Philips Oral Healthcare LLC Sonicare DiamondClean electric toothbrush claims challenged by Procter & Gamble Co. reached nearly the same conclusions as the investigation round.
In a report published 6 August, a panel of the CBBB's National Advertising Review Board stated that a chart on the Sonicare brush website comparing its features with P&G’s Oral-B 7000 model made a misleading claim comparing the products’ traveling cases and should be withdrawn, a position counter to conclusions made by attorneys for the council's investigative arm, the National Advertising Division.
The chart stated the Sonicare brush included a “deluxe charging travel case” while the Oral-B brush didn't. NAD attorneys, in a review of Philips’ website claims and a 30-second TV spot P&G challenged, said Philips’ claim about the travel case was defensible because Oral-B promotes other cases as “premium,” but not the case mentioned in the Sonicare website chart.
However, the NARB panel disagreed, saying the context in which the website chart comparison was made could communicate to consumers that the Oral-B brand didn't include a model travel case with charging capability. “Whereas Philips argues that characterizing its travel case as ‘deluxe’ is puffery, the panel does not consider it puffery when ‘deluxe’ is used in the context of a comparison to a competitor’s product,” said the NARB panel of industry, legal and academic professionals.
The review the panel considered was disputed by both Philips, appealing all of NAD’s recommendations, and P&G, which exercised its right under the CBBB's rules to file a cross-appeal. P&G challenged not only NAD attorneys’ decision about the travel case stated in a September 2018 report, but also their position that a study on which Philips based its claims was valid. RS121846
The results of the study were used to support Philips’s claims that the Sonicare brush reduced plaque by 82% more than did the Oral-B brush and improved gum health – measured by gingivitis reduction – by 70% more.
Among is arguments against the study, P&G contended Philips’ omission, from written instructions given to study participants, of portions of the actual Oral-B product use instructions rendered the study results non-reflective of actual-use.
Although NAD attorneys determined that with sound methodology the study was sound, they concluded it was not tailored accurately enough to support the claims. They said Philips failed to show that study participants were representative of the general population because the subjects should have “moderate” gingivitis to be enrolled; they recommended that study feature be disclosed as part of the main advertising claim.
The NAD attorneys also recommended Philips clarify its claims that Sonicare DiamondClean provides better oral health benefits compared with P&G’s Oral-B 7000 by stating the comparison test used certain brushes, cleaning modes and brand models as well as “Deep Clean” mode of action.
NARB: Study Valid But Disclosures Necessary
After reviewing the study, the NARB panel agreed with NAD on its validity. “The test methodology provided that each study participant received two personal instruction sessions conducted by a trained technician, one at baseline and one at 14 days. The panel agrees with NAD that these instruction sessions provided adequate guidance to the study participants on the proper use of the Oral-B brush.”
The panel also agreed with NAD that Philips should disclose the “Deep Clean” mode of action and it was unnecessary to also note that “Deep Clean” is three minutes in length, as P&G argued.
Additionally, the NARB panel agreed with NAD that the juxtaposition of advertising claims for two “Diamond Clean” Sonicare models on the branded website being compared to the Oral-B toothbrush could cause confusion and should be eliminated in future uses.
Philips responded to the decisions saying it disagrees with some of the findings, notably certain disclosure requirements and Philips’ webpage comparison chart. But the firm said it "is fully committed to the self-regulatory process and will take all of the NARB’s recommendations into consideration when developing future advertisements.”