The ‘Relief’ Racist Ad That Turned Black Skin Into The Problem

In 2025, Sanex ran a TV ad for shower gel that showed a Black woman’s cracked, itchy skin as the “before” and a white woman’s smooth, hydrated skin as the “after”. The tagline promised that “relief could be as simple as a shower”.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned the ad for reinforcing racist stereotypes. It presented Black skin as damaged and in need of fixing, and white skin as the image of comfort and health. In that final line, “relief could be as simple as a shower”, the logic is clear. Relief is linked to washing. Black skin is shown in distress before the product is used. White skin appears as the calm, clean end point. The implication is not only that dark skin is “problematic” and white skin “superior”, but that Black skin is somehow dirty or unclean until the product washes that problem away.

Sanex and Clearcast argued that the casting reflected diversity and that the ad was inclusive. The ruling made it clear that intent and impact did not match.

New ad, same old racist tricks

Ads like this do not come out of nowhere. They sit in a long history of beauty and hygiene brands using skin colour to sell products. Old soap ads literally showed Black people being scrubbed “clean” into whiteness. Skin bleaching creams have been promoted for decades as a way to lighten and “improve” darker skin. More recently, Nivea marketed a deodorant with the slogan “White is purity” and Dove faced criticism for a lotion ad that appeared to show a Black woman turning white after using the product.

The pattern is consistent. Darker skin is positioned as a problem to be treated. Lighter skin is framed as pure, clean and socially acceptable. Sanex repeated that logic, then tried to hide behind the language of diversity.

This is not a casting mistake. It is part of a wider social problem that keeps being written back into beauty marketing.

When defence becomes offence

Sanex and Colgate rejected the idea that the advert perpetuated racial bias and insisted that it was inclusive. Clearcast approved it on the same grounds. On screen, the story is very different.

Using Black discomfort to demonstrate “problem” skin pushes Black viewers towards the idea that their race is the issue. It suggests that Black skin belongs in the “itchy, cracked, uncomfortable” category, while white skin belongs in the “relief” category. For people who already live in a culture where whiteness is treated as the default for “healthy” and “clean”, seeing that hierarchy repeated yet again is not neutral. It is another reminder that their bodies are being measured against a standard they did not choose.

Apologies and explanations do not erase the emotional impact of seeing your skin tone used as a visual warning sign. The harm is not confined to this one advert. It reinforces a wider idea about which bodies belong at the centre of the picture of health and beauty, and which are pushed to the edges.

The psychological impact of “subtle” racism

The beauty industry often pairs glossy looking models with words like “itchy”, “cracked” and “uncomfortable” in order to sell relief. White skin is routinely cast as the hero of these stories. Over time, this affects how people feel in their own bodies. Seeing your skin type repeatedly used as the “before” image chips away at feelings of safety, security and pride in your appearance. It can increase shame, anxiety and constant self checking. People become hyperaware of how they look and more likely to feel that there is something wrong with them that needs fixing.

Psychologists have language for these patterns. Stereotype threat describes what happens when a group is repeatedly portrayed as less than or as a problem. People who belong to that group become more fearful of confirming the stereotype and more stressed in situations where they feel judged. The “drip drip” effect describes how repeated small exposures add up over time. Each advert is a drip. On its own it may seem minor. Drip after drip builds into internalised beliefs, lower self esteem and chronic stress from feeling that you do not quite belong.

The Sanex ad is a clear example of how that works. A Black woman’s cracked skin is shown while the voiceover says “To those who might scratch day and night”. The pairing of this image and this line encourages the viewer to connect Black skin with damage, irritation and ongoing discomfort. The ad then cuts to water and foam running over white skin that looks smooth and unmarked. The closing promise of “relief” and “hydration” is attached to that white body. None of this needs to be consciously noticed for it to have an impact. That is exactly why it is so harmful.

“Inclusivity”, but only if you are white

Sanex and Clearcast used the language of “a variety of skin types” and “inclusivity” to defend the ad. The creative itself tells a different story. The opening shot is a Black model scratching her skin and leaving bright orange marks with her fingers. The words “scratch” and “day and night” are broadcast over this image. The voiceover addresses “those” who live with this problem, which clearly marks the Black woman and, by extension, Black viewers as the focal point of the issue. This draws on old associations that positioned dark skin as unclean or in need of fixing.

The advert ends with a white woman with visibly smooth skin under water and foam and the words “24 hour hydration feel”. White skin is presented as the visual for relief, comfort and health. The contrast is not subtle. Black skin is linked to distress. White skin is linked to the solution.

Calling this “inclusive” just about hides the fact that the old hierarchy is still in place. On the surface, more than one skin tone appears. In the logic of the story, one is still the problem and the other is still the standard.

Washing away what is naturally given is not the answer here. Inclusivity that centres white comfort while coding darker skin as damaged is not inclusion. It is a continuation of skin shaming.

When two complaints are enough

The ASA banned the ad after just two complaints. At first glance that number can make the ruling seem excessive. If hardly anyone complained, some might ask, was the harm really serious.

In this context, the low complaint number is part of the problem. Most viewers will not have had the time, language or energy to recognise the racism, name it and submit a complaint before the ad disappeared. Many people will have felt that something was off but not known how to describe it. The stereotypes still had the chance to land. They simply slipped into public space without being widely challenged.

This is how “subtle” racism works. It often bypasses conscious awareness and becomes part of everyday life. The fact that only two people complained tells us nothing about how many people saw the ad. It tells us a lot about how normalised it still is to use Black skin as the visual for damage and white skin as the visual for health.

What meaningful accountability would look like

It might be tempting to treat this as one bad ad that has now been dealt with and move on, but that would miss the real issue.

Sanex denied harm and offered no clear commitment to changing how future campaigns are developed. There was no sign that they brought in people with expertise in racism and mental health, reviewed who signed the concept off, or changed their internal checks.

Meaningful accountability would look different. It would involve people in the room who understand racism and its psychological impact, with real power to veto ideas. It would involve clear guidelines that rule out using one racial group as the visual for “problem” skin and another as the visual for “relief”. It would mean reviewing scripts, storyboards and moodboards at an early stage, instead of waiting for complaints after the fact. And it would mean publicly acknowledging why the ad was harmful, not just that it was “misunderstood”.

What needs to change

This advert is one example of a wider pattern. Harmful ideas still make it through every layer of approval and into public view, then get defended as “inclusive” when challenged.

If you are tired of seeing white skin quietly framed as the baseline for “healthy” and “clean”, back the people who complain when these ads appear, share the rulings when bans happen, and support standards that stop brands using Black pain and white comfort as a sales tool. The industry pays attention when enough people refuse to accept this as normal. Help us show the industry what consumers want.