Advertising standards and misleading claims

Coca-cola is the latest in a (very) long series of firms to have been caught out by what you can say/what you can’t say in an advert. This is a classic constraint on UK business which operates within a reasonably rigid legal framework. Here are a few links to recent relevant cases and where you can go to find out more.

Any investigation of this issue will take you to the website of the Advertising Standards Authority who have just ruled that a Coca-Cola advert that labels one of its drinks “nutritious” is misleading. According to the BBC the company said its Vitamin Water was “nutritious” because it contains 100% of the recommended daily allowance of vitamin C as well as other vitamins. But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the public"would not expect” a “nutritious” drink to have the equivalent of up to five teaspoons of added sugar and banned the advert. The ASA said it considered that consumers would understand the word “nutritious” as a claim that Vitamin Water contained added ingredients that were needed by the body in order to stay healthy.

My ‘favourite’ examples come from the shameless antics of the beauty industry. It has an exceptionally poor record in using advertising and promotion that plays on people’s fears and insecurities. Another dodgy tactic is making absurd claims that later need to be withdrawn, after an ad campaign has been run. Recently, it seemed Clarins scientists had ‘discovered’ a link between “exposure to artificial electromagnetic waves and accelerated skin aging”. With remarkable good fortune, it also happened to have devised a cure - Expertise 3P (Poly Pollution Protection). This magnificent potion contained “exceptional plant extracts with super-adapting powers against all types of pollution: Thermus Thermophillus from the ocean and Rhodiola Rosea from Siberia. Together with free radical fighters, White Tea and Succory Dock-Cress, they form an advanced anti-pollution complex.”

What sounds like a load of utter twaddle was shown, on investigation, to be a load of utter twaddle. I looked on the ASA site to see if this was in any way exceptional and saw that only yesterday they had ruled that Phytolov from the Clinic of Integrated Medicine could not claim that their hand care cream “is specifically designed for helping disperse stagnation of Qi and blood, eliminating body waste products and toxins ... the balm has an anti-inflammatory effect. It helps repair and regenerate cells in the body. The balm also helps strengthen the fibrous tissues, muscles, tendons and ligaments.”

Critics argue that the cosmetics industry has become more and more brazen in its use of junk ‘science’ and manipulative images recently. L’Oreal was heavily criticized for putting false eyelashes on Penelope Cruz to sell mascara. It’s likely that further abuses by the industry will lead to further calls for cosmetics firms to get their ads approved before they are run.

It’s also bad news for sellers of herbal medicines who face tough new restrictions. In 2009 new regulations also came in to place to regulate the claims made by alternative health practioners.

If you’ve found your way to the ASA website you’ll be overwhelmed with examples. I checked my bookmarks and dug up a case on Apple from 2008.

Watch out for The Most Controversial Ads of 2010 which will be coming to the Business blog later this spring.