Mars Petcare cat food ad found misleading as fat cat exposed

It was supposed to be a story of feline dietary transformation. But it turned out to be tale of two kitties.

A Mars Petcare commercial boasting the effects of a diet cat food has been found misleading by Advertising Standards Canada, because the "before and after" images turned out to be of two different cats.

"Council found that the clear impression conveyed by this commercial … was that the cat shown both before and after weight loss was the same animal," says the case summary.

"Because that was not the case, council concluded that the advertisement was misleading."

The specific product at the centre of the controversy is not named in the case summary.

'Different cats that looked alike'

A spokesperson for the advertising industry's self-regulatory body wouldn't say when the national television commercial aired, but said the complaint was upheld last month.

Mars Petcare, which sells Whiskas, Iams and Temptations cat foods, is one of the world's leading pet food distributors. It's part of the same organization that sells Mars chocolate bars and M&Ms.

According to the case summary, the advertiser argued the ad was not misleading.

"The advertiser acknowledged in its response to council that two different cats were used to demonstrate weight loss," the summary says.

"This was done to illustrate an amount of weight loss that could be reasonably expected, even if that difference was dramatized in the commercial by using two different cats that looked alike."

Mars Petcare could not be reached for comment at the time of writing.

'Before and after' controversies

It's not the first time "before and after" images have been questioned in advertising.

Last year, the U.S. National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau recommended the discontinuation of images used to demonstrate the benefits of Pink Armor nail gel.

"The 'before' photographs depicted short and visibly damaged or diseased fingernails, while the 'after' depicted perfectly manicured, shiny, noticeably longer and pink fingernails after four weeks of use," the ruling said.

A "dramatization" disclaimer appeared beneath the photographs, but the ruling said the advertiser submitted no product testing in support of the claims.

And in 2010, the U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority criticized an advertisement for an acne kit that showed pimple-ridden "before" teens transformed into smooth-skinned "after" models.

The advertiser admitted to using face powder, but only to prevent camera flare.