Vanish and Autism: How Do We Approach Value-Signalling in 2023?

As an AuDHD person who’s algorithm is primed to spit all things neurodiverse at me, I’ve been seeing a lot of Vanish’s new spot on my feed, which heroes an autistic school girl and the sensory struggles she faces throughout a normal school day. The film was made in partnership with Channel 4 after Vanish and creative Agency Havas London won the £1m Diversity in Advertising Award in 2022.

Scrolling through the comments, the reception of the campaign from members of the autistic community and their families is overwhelmingly positive. I’ve seen lots of responses from people saying they’ve seen their own struggles as an autistic person portrayed realistically for the first time. There is a lot of praise for Vanish for highlighting the idea that small things, like clothing, can be massively grounding and essential sensory comforts during stressful situations for those with sensory issues.

There is however a smaller but still present group who are criticising Vanish’s involvement in the film. The general consensus is that the film is sensitive and a great representation of autistic life, however the underpinning idea that Vanish are using the lives of their autistic customers to increase their profits is exploitative. The term value-signalling is being bandied about in a few comment sections, and I can’t say that I disagree.

There is no verbal mention of Vanish in the ad, there are one or two visuals of the product and the climax of the film is the resolution to a family argument, meaning the conflict doesn’t surround a laundry issue that can be solved with Vanish. Vanish hasn't centred themselves as the hero of the film that swoops in and saves the autistic protagonist from a meltdown, a distasteful narrative we’ve all seen before. Vanish aren’t ‘the solution’ or even ‘a solution’ for autistic people in the narrative of this film, so what message are they trying to send?

The landing page for the campaign on their website responds to this question: We’re raising this awareness because we’re committed to helping clothes last longer. For most autistic people, familiar and consistent clothing can help with sensory regulation and provide a source of comfort. 

So they’ve identified a common issue for the autistic community that has a direct link with their product, and they’re showing up as an enthusiastic ally as a result.They also follow up with facts to back up their position as a helpful product for those with autism:

And to be fair to them, everything they are saying is true and detergent brands can play an important role in an autistic person’s life. It’s important to highlight that not every neurodiverse person has the same sensory needs, but this is definitely one I understand. I absolutely refuse to do washing without Unstopables scent boosters, and have always thrown at least three washing pods in my machine even if I’m only washing a few things because having my clothes smell obviously clean is an important sensory need for me. If we look past the slightly controversial choice of charity they chose to work with (I’ll leave you to do your own googling on that one) I would say their research is pretty solid and the conclusions they’ve drawn about the sensory issues that clothing can raise for autistic people is pretty spot on. 

So why have I come away from watching it feeling slightly icky? 

Let’s look at the positives. Using a female actress and highlighting autistic women’s struggles, great! Using an actor who is autistic herself, really great! Plus, using her real family as her onscreen one, with the script reportedly being anecdotal from their real experiences as a family, we love to see it. As many other commenters have said in response to the ad, isn’t any way of raising awareness good? For how long as a community have we been saddened to watch exaggerated portrayals of autistic traits that have been cherry picked by ill-informed directors, and up until recently performed by non-autistic actors? Shouldn’t we be grateful for this well executed representation, especially from such a household brand?

One part of me wants to applaud Vanish for their sensitivity and insight into the genuine issues they are highlighting and the ways their products can help. And I can’t even say that I’m annoyed that BIG DETERGENT are using autism for their own gain, because what brand doesn’t incorporate diversity and inclusion issues in their campaigns these days?

The feeling I can’t get away from is that I hate that we have to rely on private companies to provide awareness of these issues in exchange for their profitable gain. Why is it Vanish who created this film, instead of the NHS? Why are our government and health services not stepping in to create awareness around these issues, and stepping up to balance out the diagnosis gap between boys and girls, another issue highlighted by Vanish in the wider campaign around this film. 

Regardless of the sensitive execution of the film, Vanish’s involvement will always position it as an advert for their products. Set-up, problem, solution. And in this case Vanish is the solution for parents of autistic children with sensory needs, or adults like myself who do use these products to manage sensory issues. 

Once again I am brought back to the idea that the onus is on the individual to offer up their monetizable brand loyalty in order for their voices to be heard. While the NHS and other essential services go chronically underfunded, we all are forced into a position where we not only applaud but rely upon private companies and brands to champion broad and nuanced social and cultural issues. And as well-intentioned as Vanish may be, the profitable incentive brands have to value-signal to their heart's content, doesn’t wash well with me.