On August 20, 2025, the United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) announced a ban on a television advertisement for Sanex shower gel, citing concerns that the commercial perpetuated an offensive racial stereotype by suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin. The decision, which has sparked debate among consumers, regulators, and advertising professionals, underscores the ongoing challenges brands face in representing diversity responsibly—and the fine line between intention and perception in mass media.
The ad in question, which aired in June 2025, opened with scenes of a Black woman whose skin bore visible red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked, clay-like material. The voiceover set the tone: “To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water,” as reported by CNN and The Independent. The commercial then transitioned to a white woman showering, accompanied by the line, “Try to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24-hour hydration feel.” The ad concluded with both on-screen text and the voiceover declaring, “Relief could be as simple as a shower.”
It didn’t take long for the ASA to receive complaints—two, to be exact—from viewers who felt that the ad reinforced negative stereotypes about people with darker skin tones. They argued that the juxtaposition of Black skin depicted as dry, itchy, and problematic, followed by images of white skin appearing smooth and refreshed, created a troubling implication: that Black skin was inherently flawed and that the product’s use, as demonstrated on white skin, represented an ideal or superior state.
The ASA launched an investigation and, in a detailed statement, explained its reasoning. “The ad was therefore 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,” the watchdog said, as quoted by ITV News. “That could be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin.”
The regulator acknowledged that this was likely not the message intended by Colgate-Palmolive, the US-based company behind Sanex, and even allowed that the problematic implication “might appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers.” Nevertheless, the ASA concluded that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that Black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior. The ruling was unequivocal: the commercial had breached the broadcast advertising code and was likely to cause serious offense. The ad was banned from airing again, and Colgate-Palmolive was instructed “to ensure they avoided causing serious offence on the grounds of race.”
Colgate-Palmolive, for its part, defended the advertisement’s intent and execution. The company stated that the depiction of diverse models—some experiencing skin discomfort, others enjoying post-product relief—was meant to illustrate the product’s suitability and effectiveness for all skin tones. “Our advert was intended to highlight how our skin therapy range supports healthy skin across a variety of skin types. At Sanex, our mission is to champion skin health for all, which is portrayed across our brand communications,” a Sanex spokesperson said, as reported by The Telegraph. The company maintained that the structure of the ad was a classic “before and after” scenario, not a comparison based on race or ethnicity, and thus was not likely to cause serious or widespread offense.
Clearcast, the organization responsible for pre-approving TV commercials in the UK, also supported the ad’s approach. According to The Independent, Clearcast argued that the commercial demonstrated the inclusivity of the Sanex brand. They noted that the depictions of dryness and discomfort on darker skin were stylized and unrealistic, intended to convey sensation rather than focus on skin tone. In their assessment, the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes but rather showcased the product’s broad applicability.
Despite these defenses, the ASA remained unconvinced. The regulator’s ruling highlighted the power of visual storytelling—and the risks inherent in even well-meaning attempts at inclusivity. “Although we understood that this message was not the one intended and might appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers, we considered that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior,” the ASA said in its final decision, as cited by CNN and ITV News.
The controversy surrounding the Sanex ad is not an isolated incident. The ASA has recently stepped up its scrutiny of advertising content, banning a range of commercials for reasons ranging from body image concerns—such as featuring models who appeared “unhealthily thin” in ads for Marks & Spencer and Zara—to misleading health claims, as in a BrewDog beer campaign that suggested alcohol could cure boredom. This reflects a broader trend in the UK and beyond, where regulators, advocacy groups, and the public are increasingly sensitive to the social and cultural implications of advertising imagery and messaging.
For many observers, the Sanex case raises important questions about how brands can authentically represent diversity without falling into the trap of reinforcing stereotypes. The difference between intention and perception can be razor-thin, especially in visual media where context and sequencing matter as much as content. Even when a company’s stated goal is inclusivity, the final product must be carefully scrutinized for unintended messages that may alienate or offend segments of the audience.
As for Colgate-Palmolive, the ban is a reputational setback, but also an opportunity for reflection and dialogue. The company has indicated it will take the ASA’s ruling under advisement and remains committed to championing skin health for all. Whether future campaigns will find a more universally accepted way to depict diversity remains to be seen, but the episode serves as a cautionary tale for advertisers everywhere: in the pursuit of inclusivity, the details of storytelling are paramount, and the audience’s interpretation can matter just as much as the brand’s intent.
The Sanex ad controversy has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over representation, sensitivity, and responsibility in advertising. With regulatory bodies like the ASA taking a firmer stance, brands are being called to a higher standard—one that demands not just good intentions, but careful execution and an awareness of the powerful signals their ads can send.
