Spot the difference: Ban on acne advert where the models wore make-up



It looks like the miracle cure for acne that many teenagers dream of.

But a spot cream is the latest beauty product to be caught out apparently promising more than it can deliver.

A television advert for Clean & Clear Advantage Acne Control Kit has been banned because producers used makeup to enhance a before and after comparison.

The Advertising Standards Authority yesterday removed the commercial from screens after the watchdog ruled it was misleading.

Miracle cure? The girl has no make-up on the left, but wears a 'light powder' for the after shot



A series of girls featured in the advert had their skin cleansed and all concealer and foundation removed for the filming of a ‘before’ shot.

Following four weeks of treatment with the acne kit, which sells for almost £13, producers then removed the girls’ make-up again for the ‘after’ shot.

But this time they added a ‘light powder’ to their subjects’ faces before the cameras rolled. Avoiceover in the finished advert claims: ‘If you have spots, you’ve tried everything.

‘Now try something different. Look at the difference it made for these girls.

‘A clinical study showed 100 per cent of people had improvement in just one day. After four weeks, they all had fewer spots, reduced redness and much clearer skin.’

Johnson & Johnson, which makes the acne kit, claimed the comparison was ‘representative’ of the results its product could achieve.



The company said make-up was only applied to the T-zone – the area around the forehead, nose and mouth where spots are most common – to stop glare hiding the results in the advert.

The answer? The £13 Clean and Clear spot kit from Johnson and Johnson

It added: ‘This was done to ensure the shininess did not detract from the results on the improved clarity of skin.’

But viewers complained to the ASA that the results were unrealistic.



The watchdog yesterday backed the complaints, saying the adverts showed a ‘marked difference’ between the before and after shots.

Its adjudication said: ‘We noted the concern that make-up had been used to improve the appearance of the skin and conceal blemishes.’

It added the before and after shots should both have been filmed without make-up to ensure the comparison was a fair representation of the results.

‘Because the ad featured women without make-up in the “before” shots but make-up had been used to enhance the appearance of the T-zone in the “after” shots, the appearance of the girls’ skin in the after shot could give a misleading

impression of the likely result from using the product,’ it added.

Another beauty firm, Olay, was criticised by the ASA last month over a misleading magazine advert for eye cream – in which 60-year-old model Twiggy’s eye area had been digitally airbrushed.

