Appeal of NAD Final Decision
Regarding Advertising by The Sherwin Williams Company for
Dutch Boy Refresh™ Paint
Regarding Advertising by The Sherwin Williams Company for
Dutch Boy Refresh™ Paint
Backround:
PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (“PPG”) challenged claims made by The Sherwin-Williams Company (“Sherwin-Williams”) for its Dutch Boy Refresh™ paint. The challenged claims were made in print, point-of-sale, internet, labeling and television advertising. The challenged claims include:
• “eliminates household odors”
• “continuously eliminates odors day after day”
• “The first and only paint with Arm & Hammer Odor Eliminating Technology….”
NAD found that, in the context of the challenged advertising, references to “continuously eliminates household odors” and “odor eliminating technology” reasonably implied that Refresh paint will reduce odors to an olfactory level that is not detectable to the average consumer during the useful life of the paint. NAD determined that testing submitted by Sherwin-Williams provided a reasonable basis for a claim that Refresh Paint helped to reduce odors, but did not support claims that it eliminated odors. NAD also found that the testing submitted by Sherwin-Williams did not provide a reasonable basis to support any durational claims.
NAD recommended that Sherwin-Williams discontinue the challenged claims or modify them to better reflect test results. Sherwin-Williams agreed to discontinue its durational claims (e.g., “continuously” and “day after day”), but appealed NAD’s findings as to the message reasonably conveyed by claims that Refresh paint “eliminates household odors” and has “odor eliminating technology.”
NAD recommended that Sherwin-Williams discontinue the challenged claims or modify them to better reflect test results. Sherwin-Williams agreed to discontinue its durational claims (e.g., “continuously” and “day after day”), but appealed NAD’s findings as to the message reasonably conveyed by claims that Refresh paint “eliminates household odors” and has “odor eliminating technology.”
Findings and Conclusions:
Claim that Refresh paint eliminates household odors:
The panel agrees with NAD that one of the messages reasonably conveyed by the “eliminates household odors” claim is that Refresh paint reduces odors to a level that is not perceptible by most consumers. The panel’s determination is based on the plain meaning of the word “eliminate,” which will be understood by most consumers to mean “get rid of” or “remove.” While the testing submitted by Sherwin-Williams establishes that Refresh paint helps to reduce odors through the removal of some odor particles, it does not establish that Refresh paint removes enough odor particles to reduce odors to an imperceptible level.
The panel agrees with NAD that one of the messages reasonably conveyed by the “eliminates household odors” claim is that Refresh paint reduces odors to a level that is not perceptible by most consumers. The panel’s determination is based on the plain meaning of the word “eliminate,” which will be understood by most consumers to mean “get rid of” or “remove.” While the testing submitted by Sherwin-Williams establishes that Refresh paint helps to reduce odors through the removal of some odor particles, it does not establish that Refresh paint removes enough odor particles to reduce odors to an imperceptible level.
Claim that Refresh paint has “Odor Eliminating Technology”:
The challenged advertising includes claims that Refresh paint incorporates “odor eliminating technology,” in most cases through display of the Arm & Hammer logo with the phrase “Odor Eliminating Technology” immediately above it. The panel does not agree with NAD’s determination that, in the context of the challenged advertising, the claim that Refresh paint incorporates “odor eliminating technology” conveys the same message as the more direct claim that Refresh paint eliminates odors. Rather, the panel believes that reference to incorporation of “odor eliminating technology” reasonably conveys a message of what technology is included and how that technology works, not a promise that odor will be reduced to an imperceptible level. Diagrams on some, but not all, of the challenged advertising reinforce this by showing how the technology works through adsorption of odor particles. Inclusion of the Arm & Hammer logo provides further reinforcement by focusing on the inclusion of technology from another manufacturer. However, even in the absence of such reinforcement, the panel believes that reference to Refresh paint’s incorporation of “odor eliminating technology” will be reasonably perceived as a statement of the technology that is included and the way that it works, not a message that Refresh paint will reduce odors to an imperceptible level.
Decision:
The panel thanks the parties for participating in this process, which is an important part of the advertising industry’s self-regulatory efforts to ensure the truthfulness and accuracy of advertising claims.
The panel recommends that Sherwin-Williams discontinue claims that Refresh paint eliminates household odors or modify them to better reflect test results.
Advertiser’s Statement:
Sherwin-Williams thanks the NARB panel for its careful consideration of its appeal and is pleased to participate in the self-regulatory process. Sherwin-Williams is pleased that the panel agrees that its use of the phrase “odor eliminating technology” does not convey any unsubstantiated performance benefit for RefreshTM Paint and may continue to be used, including in executions that do not include further information on how the technology works. Sherwin-Williams is also pleased that the NARB panel affirmed that Sherwin-Williams’ substantiation research validated and substantiated the intended meaning of its claims: that RefreshTM Paint reduces household odors. Although it is disappointed that the panel did not agree as to the scope of the message conveyed by the “eliminates household odors” phrase, Sherwin-Williams will comply with the NARB panel’s recommendations.
Sherwin-Williams thanks the NARB panel for its careful consideration of its appeal and is pleased to participate in the self-regulatory process. Sherwin-Williams is pleased that the panel agrees that its use of the phrase “odor eliminating technology” does not convey any unsubstantiated performance benefit for RefreshTM Paint and may continue to be used, including in executions that do not include further information on how the technology works. Sherwin-Williams is also pleased that the NARB panel affirmed that Sherwin-Williams’ substantiation research validated and substantiated the intended meaning of its claims: that RefreshTM Paint reduces household odors. Although it is disappointed that the panel did not agree as to the scope of the message conveyed by the “eliminates household odors” phrase, Sherwin-Williams will comply with the NARB panel’s recommendations.
Board Members for Panel #165:
Bonnie Drewiany
Professor
University of South Carolina
Andreas Combeuchen
CEO/CCO
Atmosphere BBDO
Abby Elu
Associate Manager, Interactive Marketing
Campbell Soup Company
Gary Zizka
Vice President, Public Policy
Diageo
Bruce Dunbar
Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications executive
Posts
