NAD Examines Advertising For P&G’s ‘Secret Clinical Strength’

New York, NY – July 23, 2007 – The National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has determined that certain establishment claims and product-performance and comparative claims made by Procter & Gamble for its “Secret Clinical Strength” antiperspirant product are fully substantiated.

As part of its routine monitoring program, NAD, the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum, requested substantiation for certain establishment claims, product performance and comparative claims made in print, and broadcast advertising, as well as on product labeling by the Procter & Gamble Company for its Secret Clinical Strength product.

Claims at issue included:

• “Clinical Strength”
• “… delivers … clinically-proven wetness protection…”
• “Rx Strength Wetness Defense”
• “…Doctor-endorsed Secret Clinical Strength gives you prescription strength wetness protection without a prescription.”
•  “… stops wetness better than the leading invisible solid”

NAD examined evidence that included two clinical studies in support of the company’s general product performance claims. Both studies were conducted pursuant to guidance provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In its decision, NAD noted that when making establishment claims, specific product or brand testing remains the gold standard. To this end, NAD observed that the advertiser tested its Secret Clinical Strength product, as marketed for sale.

NAD examined also two additional head-to-head studies against the leading prescription antiperspirant, consumer testing analysis in support of the superiority claim and the results of a survey of 200 primary care physicians and dermatologists who treat patients with severe underarm wetness and prescribe prescription-strength antiperspirants as part of their practice.

Following its review of the evidence in the record, NAD determined that the claims at issue were fully supported.

Procter & Gamble, in its advertiser’s statement, said the company “is supportive of, and pleased to participate in, the NAD claims review process.”