
Sorry, I had to reply to this one as someone who spends all my working days in contact with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) daily, sometimes I'm lucky enough for it to be weekly - but not that lucky. Thankfully, and I mean thankfully - the ASA work on a basis of something called "common sense". Had the woman been shown pouring oxi-white on the Westie then there would have been strong grounds for investigation into this advert. At this point I would like to point out that I haven't sat long enough in front of the box to have seen this advert personally so I'm simply going on the description already given on this thread.
It seems to me the woman was simply bathing the dog? There was a bottle of
shampoo next to the dog and not a pot/bottle of oxi-white. This is not breaking any codes in the Advertising world. Sorry, but it isn't. You can jump up and down as much as you like but this is how it is. There was no false advertisement. There were no offensive scenes (of which could cause someone to be disturbed - such as the dog being washed by Oxi-white). And there was no nudity or sexual innuendo?? I presume the woman wasn't naked? And if she was (which I would be surprised at) then the advert should have been shown post water-shed. If it was not, this would be another cause of complaint.
You would have really good grounds for complaint if you had used oxi-white and found the results were not as promised in the advert. This is something really important called "false advertisement".
Your complaint would not have been looked at because it simply hasn't breached any codes. I personally believe the codes they would have looked at, if they were to have wasted their time to investigate, would have been: CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1. (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1. (Evidence) and 5.2.2. (Implications).
Sorry, but they would not have been found in breach for any of these.
I think the best complaint I have ever read (of many!!) was when a viewer wrote in to complain about the Munch-bunch adverts. He complained that the glass of milk they showed on the advert, next to a yoghurt pot was misleading because you couldn't tell how big the glass of milk was so the amount of calcium shown was considerably more than the 100ml quoted in the advert. The ASA reply was fantastic. They simply said: " the image of the glass of milk was shown alongside a superimposed image of a pot of the yoghurt, and in front of a cartoon cow, it was not possible to establish the proportions of any of the images shown". They then continued to bluntly point out: "We considered that on-screen text shown prior to and during the image of the glass of milk stated clearly that one pot of the yoghurt contained as much calcium as a 100 ml of milk."
So, they were blunt. They were obvious. And they don't suffer fools gladly. In conclusion to this, I hope I have explained the ASA's role a little better and the sort of c**p they have to investigate. A dog being shown bathed at the end of an oxi-white advert really is not worth investigating. Particularly if a bottle of dog shampoo was on screen. If people are not sharp enough to notice it, then that really isn't their problem. If they made the bottle any bigger then the company may have been at risk of advertising dog shampoo more than oxi-white!
If you would like to ask me any more questions about Advertising conducts and codes then I am more than happy to help you out. I work for a company in a marketing compliance area that has been on the bitter end of the ASA but thankfully managed to escape a fine. If there was a job going with them then I would honestly jump at the chance. They are one of the few remaining companies in existence regulating products that use something really fantastic that you just don't see anymore. It's called "common sense".