Black Skin as ‘Problem’, White Skin as ‘Ideal’: UK Bans Sanex Ad Over Harmful Stereotype”

By Ephraim Agbo 

Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a TV advert for Sanex shower gel after finding it “likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that Black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior.” The ruling requires the ad not to run again in its current form and has reopened a debate about creative risk, unconscious bias and review processes inside global marketing teams.

---

What happened

• The commercial, which aired in June, showed Black models presented with visible signs of itchiness/dryness — red scratch marks and a cracked, clay-like texture — then cut to a white model shown with smooth, clear skin after using the product. The voiceover included lines such as: “To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water.”
• The ASA received two complaints and investigated the ad. It concluded that the structure and sequencing of images — darker skin shown in the “problem” scenes and lighter skin in the “solution” scenes — could be read by viewers as implying a racial hierarchy. Because of that likely interpretation the ASA ruled the ad would “cause serious offence” and must not appear again in its current form.
• Colgate-Palmolive (Sanex’s parent company) has been approached for comment in coverage; some reporting notes the company argued the creative intent was to show a “before and after” across skin types, and Clearcast (the UK broadcast clearance body) defended the depictions as stylised sensations rather than racial messaging. Nonetheless the ASA found the effect problematic regardless of intent.

---

Why the ASA objected — the regulator’s reasoning, in plain language

Regulators assess not just what an ad intends to say but what an average viewer could reasonably take away. The ASA’s ruling rested on two linked points:

1. Juxtaposition creates meaning. Showing Black skin in distress followed by white skin in resolution sets up an implicit comparison; that sequencing can communicate that one skin tone is the problem and another the ideal.
2. Stereotypes matter even if accidental. The ASA explicitly noted that even if the advertiser did not intend a racial message, images and editing choices can reinforce historical and social stereotypes — and advertisers are responsible for preventing that.

---

Broader context — this is not an isolated issue

Advertising regulators and audiences have become less tolerant of content that risks racial stereotyping. In recent years there have been high-profile cases where ads were pulled or banned after public outcry. For major multinational brands this is a recurrent reputational hazard: creative teams can misread cultural cues, and global campaigns that are not stress-tested across diverse panels risk costly mistakes. The Sanex ruling sits in that trend and shows regulators will act when representation is likely to cause serious offence.

---

How this probably passed clearance — and where it failed

From the outside we can only infer, but common failure points include:

• Creative tunnel vision: teams focused on a “before/after” narrative may not test sequencing implications for different audiences.
• Insufficient diversity in testing: if ad clearance panels aren’t diverse in skin tone, cultural background and lived experience, harms can be missed.
• Overreliance on stylisation: stylised effects (clay, cracking textures) don’t erase the real-world meanings viewers attribute to skin imagery.
  The ASA’s decision highlights that clearance must assess context and likely interpretations — not only technical compliance.

---

What brands and agencies should do (practical checklist)

1. Diverse review panels: include a broad mix of skin tones and cultural backgrounds in both creative reviews and final ad clearances.
2. Scenario testing: view the ad out of sequence and in short clips to see what the immediate visual takeaway is for a non-expert viewer.
3. Language and imagery audit: match voiceover and visual metaphors carefully; metaphors that imply “dirty/problematic” are especially risky when paired with particular skin tones.
4. Local sensitivity checks: what passes in one market may fail in another; run focused pre-launch testing in markets with diverse audiences.
5. Rapid remediation plan: have a PR/creative playbook for pausing and reediting assets when concerns arise.

---

The reputational and commercial cost

A banned ad brings immediate headlines (as this case shows) and can erode trust among the brand’s existing customers who feel misrepresented. For multinational firms, costs include media wastage, creative rework, regulatory paperwork, and the longer-term task of rebuilding credibility in affected communities. The ASA ban is a reminder that creative freedom must be balanced with social responsibility.

Take away

The Sanex ban is a concrete example of how visual storytelling — sequencing, metaphor and casting — shapes meaning in ways advertisers must anticipate. Intent alone is not a defence. In a media environment where audiences, advocates and regulators watch closely, brands must bake cultural testing and diverse perspectives into their creative processes, not as afterthoughts but as design fundamentals.