Now for the science bit... ASA Olay adjudication

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has this week banned an Olay Regenerist skincare cream TV advert. The ruling should ring alarm bells for all advertisers relying on trial or survey data to support their marketing claims - even a slight slip up in your methodology could result in complaints, adverse adjudications and the study you have paid for being rendered a costly waste of time.

The Olay advert included claims that the ingredient pentapeptides was an effective means of reducing the appearance of lines and wrinkles. The makers of Olay, Procter & Gamble (P&G), relied on two trials to support the claim - one internal and one conducted by the ingredient supplier and published at the World Congress of Dermatology.

The ASA decision highlights the crucial importance of getting the methodology right. The independent expert instructed by the ASA identified significant "methodological gaps" in the information provided by P&G. For example, both studies were split-face trials (where different products are applied to each side of the face) but neither recorded the important methodological step of evaluating each side of the face at the outset.

Aside from the negative publicity flowing from the adjudication, P&G will now be unable to rely on the studies to make further claims in its advertising. Costs and time have been wasted.

Advertisers should note the decision and that, however superficially robust proposed substantiating data may seem (in this case, not one but two serious studies, one of them published), there is a real need to be rigorous.