![\"\"](\"https:\/\/static.euronews.com\/website\/images\/logos\/logo-euronews-stacked-outlined-72x72-grey-9.svg\"){kind=logo}
\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n
\n Published on
\n 21\/08\/2025 – 10:57 GMT+2\n <\/p>\n
\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n
UK regulators have banned a TV commercial for Sanex shower gel after ruling that it \u201ccould be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received complaints about the ad from people \u201cwho believed the ad perpetuated negative stereotypes about people with darker skin tones,\u201d it said in a statement on Wednesday.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The ad, which aired in June, featured a Black model whose skin is covered with a cracked, clay-like material\u00a0and another covered with red scratch marks. \u00a0<\/p>\n
The voiceover states: \u201cTry to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24-hour hydration feel.\u201d This is said over images of a white woman showering. \u00a0<\/p>\n
The voiceover continued: “To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water…” This segement is accompanied by scenes of a Black woman with the aforementioned scratch marks. \u00a0<\/p>\n
The ad finishes by stating: “Relief could be as simple as a shower.”\u00a0<\/p>\n
The UK watchdog\u00a0ruled the use of different skin colours to portray a “before and after” of the product’s use created a problematic juxtaposition, in which black skin is shown as dry and cracked and white skin is smoother. \u00a0<\/p>\n
Colgate-Palmolive, which owns the Sanex brand, said the ad’s use of diverse models was to show its product was suitable and effective for all, and stated that they did not believe the ad reinforced negative racial stereotypes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Clearcast, an agency which approves or rejects ads for broadcast on television, agreed with Colgate-Palmolive, adding that the\u00a0ad demonstrated the product’s inclusivity.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The ASA did accept the argument that the ad showed \u201cbefore and after\u201d scenarios to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product, but it ruled that the ad was “structured in such a way that it was the black skin, depicted in association with itchy and dry skin, which was shown to be problematic and uncomfortable, whereas the white skin, depicted as smoother and clean after using the product, was shown successfully changed and resolved”.\u00a0<\/p>\n
“We considered that could be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin,” it added. “We concluded that the ad included a racial stereotype and was therefore likely to cause serious offence.”\u00a0<\/p>\n
There have been wider calls in the UK for brands to ensure sensitivity, as well as responsible and diverse representation.<\/p>\n