Sanex Shower Gel Ad Banned For Showing Black Skin As Problematic

Regulators in the United Kingdom banned a Sanex shower gel advert after ruling it reinforced harmful racial stereotypes. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the campaign, broadcast in June, depicted Black skin as flawed while presenting white skin as the ideal result of using the product. The watchdog concluded that the advert was likely to cause serious offense and should not be aired again.

How the Sanex Advert Depicted Skin

The advert opened with a voiceover describing skin that “might scratch day and night” and “feel dried out even by water.” The advert paired these words with images of a Black woman marked with red scratches and another covered in cracked, clay-like material. In the closing sequence, it showed a white woman showering with Sanex while the voiceover described the product as offering ‘24-hour hydration’ and ‘relief as simple as a shower

The ASA said this framing presented a before-and-after scenario that directly linked discomfort with darker skin and wellness with lighter skin. By positioning white skin as the positive outcome, the advert risked reinforcing the offensive idea that Black skin is inherently problematic.

Complaints and the ASA Decision

Two viewers challenged the campaign, arguing that the imagery perpetuated negative stereotypes about people with darker skin tones. After reviewing the advert, the ASA agreed, concluding that the juxtaposition of Black and white models created a harmful contrast.

The regulator ruled that the advert breached standards on responsible advertising and had the potential to cause widespread offense. It was ordered that the campaign must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Colgate Palmolive and Clearcast Response

Colgate-Palmolive, the company behind Sanex, defended the advert. It said the campaign aimed to highlight product effectiveness across different skin types and tones. According to the company, the use of varied models was part of a wider commitment to diversity, not a racial comparison.

Clearcast, the agency responsible for approving television adverts, also stood by the campaign. The company argued that it stylised the depictions of dryness and itchiness to demonstrate sensation rather than actual skin conditions. The agency said the advert showed inclusivity by featuring models with different appearances and did not believe it breached advertising rules.

Despite these defenses, the ASA maintained that the imagery reinforced an offensive hierarchy of skin tones and upheld the complaints. The ruling underscores the need for brands to carefully examine how their visual storytelling may intersect with historical stereotypes. In a marketplace where inclusivity is essential, careless contrasts can turn a product launch into a reputational risk.