Update - Mane Hair Spray Comes Under Fire

November 1, 2006

Advertising Standards Authority 
Broadcast Advertising Adjudications 

Advertiser:    Mane (UK) Ltd
 
Product:    Mane
 
Date:    3 May 2006
 
Media:   Television
 
 
Complaint:
BCAP monitored a commercial for Mane, a hair thickening spray.  The product was demonstrated through a series of photographs with the following voice-over “If you have fine or thinning hair Mane is the perfect answer (“before” photographs were shown). Mane is a simple-to-use hair spray that gives your hair a fuller, natural appearance in seconds and is ideal for men and women (“after” photographs were shown).  Mane is suitable for a wide variety of conditions ...  Mane is easy to apply to clean dry hair.  Just spray on and style to your liking then fix with a light hold spray ...  With Mane you can see the difference, a fuller natural appearance in easy steps …”.
 
One “before” photograph showed a woman with slightly curly thinning hair.  In the “after” photograph, her hair had increased in bulk and density.  The other “before” photograph showed a man with a large and almost entirely bald patch on the top of his head: although he did have hair on the sides of his head.  The “after” photograph showed a man with a full head of hair.  
 
BCAP challenged whether these “before” and “after” photographs, supported by the audio claims about the effect on thinning hair, gave a fair impression of the product’s capability.  In the man’s case, BCAP challenged whether the effect had been achieved through a “comb-over”.
 
ADJUDICATION: Not upheld
Mane (UK) Ltd said the fact that the woman's hair appeared so much thicker in the "after" photograph was a testament to the product's efficacy. They supplied a letter from the woman's hairdresser, who was present at the photo-shoot, confirming that the photographs were genuine and an accurate representation of the effects the product could achieve. The advertisers maintained that they had not altered the lighting for the second photograph. They argued that the woman's ''thicker'' head of hair would have been achieved from any angle.
 
The ASA noted that the product worked by covering the scalp and hairs with a fine layer of powder, rather like a mascara would on eyelashes. The ASA considered that, although the woman was in a different pose and seemed to be lit differently, the impression of a thicker head of hair in the "after'' photograph was unlikely to give a misleading impression of the effect from using the product.
 
For the man's "after'' photograph, the advertisers said that a simple comb-over would not have given the effect demonstrated. They explained that it could ''only be achieved by using Mane to thicken the crown area and also to thicken the hair to the side". They added that the product had been used for over 20 years without a complaint.
 
The ASA accepted that the thick head of hair in the man's "after" photograph had been achieved through a comb-over of hair as well as through use of the product.   The ASA noted that the ad made plain that the product was for use by those with fine or thinning hair and that the improved “appearance” was achieved by action other than just the use of the spray. 
 
The ASA considered that the ad did not imply attributes, capabilities or performance that could not be achieved through normal use of the product. The ASA concluded that the ad was not misleading and did not breach rule 5.2.2 (implications) of the CAP (Broadcast) Television Advertising Standards Code.

Other Articles