AdWatch - GO BACK TO BODY LANGUAGE WEB
Ad Watch prints adjudications made by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority in favour or against complaints it receives about the promotion of cosmetic surgery services.

In the dock: Transform Medical Group objected to a Pountney clinic magazine advertisement, which stated "... London's only purpose-built cosmetic surgery hospital ..." The complainant, who asserted its London hospital had been purpose-built for cosmetic surgery, challenged the claim.
Proof: Pountney said the site for its hospital had been bought from Hounslow Health Authority and it had obtained permission to build on it on the condition that it would be used only for a cosmetic surgery hospital. Pountney sent a copy of the architect's drawings for the hospital. Pountney asserted that the complainants had bought an existing building and that the complainants' hospital could not therefore be described as purpose-built for the activity of cosmetic surgery.
Judgement: The authority was satisfied that Pountney's hospital was purpose-built for the activity of cosmetic surgery. It understood from the complainant that it had refurbished a hospital for the sole purpose of practising cosmetic surgery; the complainant therefore considered its hospital to be purpose-built. The authority considered that readers would understand "purpose-built" to mean that the hospital had been built from scratch. Because that was true only of the advertiser's hospital, the authority concluded that the claim was justified.

Weight loss claim ruled unsafe

In the dock: National Slimming & Medical Centres of Bournemouth following industry complaints from Weight Watcher UK Ltd and Weight Management (UK) Ltd. The objection was to a regional press ad for a slimming centre that claimed: “Congratulations! Jane loses 148 pounds. Jane, weighing in at 319 pounds, contacted National Slimming Centres and the results have been dramatic! Just 12 months later she now weighs 171 pounds. Allison has dropped 16 dress sizes, losing more than 98 pounds. Andrew lost 70 pounds and went from a 40” to a 30” waist.”
The ad featured a before and after photograph of Jane. The complainants challenged whether, one, weight loss of 148 pounds in 12 months exceeded safe weight loss guidelines and, two, the people featured in the ad were obese before achieving weight loss and whether the advertiser was therefore offering a treatment for obesity.
Proof: A National Slimming and Medical Centre spokesperson said that the association is a specialist in weight loss therapy and that all its patients see a qualified medical doctor weekly or bi-weekly. A member of the British Dietetic Association had prepared its diet guide and care was taken to ensure strict clinical guidelines were followed.
The spokesperson said Jane’s weight loss in 12 months was about 2.8 pounds a week. The spokesperson did not know what “safe guidelines” the complainants had referred to but said that, in the centre’s experience, a weight loss of 2.2–3.3 pounds was considered desirable and that 2.73 pounds was a safe average.
On the second charge the spokesperson said, when Jane began treatment, her body mass index (BMI) was defined as stage three, or morbid obesity, the highest category considered 'life threatening' by experts. After 12 months, her BMI had been reduced to pre-obese, which was still overweight but no longer life threatening.
The centre provided a blank medical card to show that detailed medical records were made for each patient and provided evidence that confirmed the doctors who worked for them were medically qualified.
Judgement: The authority referred to Department of Health guidelines, which state that one to two pounds is a safe weekly weight loss. Because the advertiser’s claims were based on weight loss over the recommended weight loss, the authority asked the advertiser to amend future ads in line with safe weight-loss. The authority considered that, although it offered a treatment for obesity, the ad made clear the centre provided regular medical supervision to those who joined. As the centre’s clients were supervised by a qualified doctor, the authority considered the ad acceptable.

Enhanced breast ad withdrawn

In the dock: Erdic UK Ltd of Harley Street, London for implying that its herbal tablets enlarge female breasts. Herbal Best Ltd objected to the claim made in a magazine ad. The ad showed a woman wearing a low-cut top under the headline, “The Natural Alternative?” The text underneath the picture stated: ”As tested by The Sunday Times, The Mail, Elle magazine, and others.”
Proof: Erdic said the listed publications had tested the product and found it effective in enhancing female breasts. The company submitted copies of articles from the publications, which featured testimonials from women who had tried the product and believed it worked.
Judgement: The authority told Erdic that testimonials alone were not enough to prove the efficacy of a product. Although it noted the ad did not make explicit efficacy claims, the authority ruled the image of the woman, with its emphasis on her low-cut top, and the text “as tested by The Sunday Times, The Mail, Elle and others” implied the product could enhance female breasts. The authority said that, as the advertiser had not conducted any controlled, clinical trials, the ad misleadingly implied Erdic could enhance female breasts. Erdic was asked to withdraw its ad.

Why you can’t say it’s ‘permanent’

In the dock: Hairaway of Birmingham for implying in a magazine advertisement that its laser hair removal system could permanently remove hair quickly and safely and that it was “approved” by a health authority. Also in the dock is the Laser Hair Clinic of Northampton for making claims in its brochure that “the Alexandrite laser has been clinically tested and has proven to give a permanent result in most cases and is more effective than most hair removal lasers”.
Transform Medical Group made an industry complaint against each company, and a public complaint was made in Bedfordshire against Hairaway.
Proof: Hairaway corroborated its claim with three reports, written on behalf of a laser manufacturer. The Laser Hair Clinic submitted sales information from the laser manufacturer. On the issue of safety, Hairaway placed reliance on the laser manufacturer’s claims in its reports. And on the issue of “Health Authority approval”, Hairaway sent certificates of registration, which are granted by health authorities when the laser is registered.
Judgements: The authority ruled that Hairaway’s advertisements implied permanent hair removal. As no report proved this – earlier the authority had mentioned none “seemed to be peer-reviewed” – it asked Hairaway not to imply in future advertisements that it offers permanent hair removal. As for the Laser Hair Clinic, the authority noted that a results table in the brochure it supplied did not show 100% removal in any area and stated merely that the treatment would “substantially delay hair regrowth”. It also pointed to a warning in the brochure itself: “To achieve general patient satisfaction it is absolutely necessary to avoid fostering expectations of permanency.” The authority said it was “concerned” that the Laser Hair Clinic had been unable to submit clinical evidence in support of its claims and asked these to be removed from future advertisements.
On the safety issue, the authority said Hairaway had not proven the laser treatment was safe and told the clinic not to claim it was. The authority noted that blisters and persistent pigment changes occurred, and that scarring was possible. It also noted that any high-energy laser can cause eye or skin damage if used wrongly. Turning to advertising “health authority approval”, it was ruled Hairaway had only fulfilled a legal requirement by registering lasers and did not have the “approval” of a health authority. Hairaway told the authority it would change “approved” to “registered” in its advertisements.

What went before can come after

In the dock: Bodyline Cosmetic Surgery Group of Warley for an allegation it did not perform breast implant procedures shown in before and after pictures of its advertisements in the national press. The complaint, from Lancashire, was investigated on the basis of another advertisement featuring the same woman but modelling for a different clinic.
The advertisers asserted that the surgery had been carried out by a named surgeon who worked for the Bodyline Cosmetic Surgery Group and the National Centre for Cosmetic Surgery. They explained that the photographs belonged to the surgeon and that it was illegal for surgeons to advertise under their own name; they maintained that the advertisement was a true representation of that surgeon’s work and that its customers could ask to be treated by that surgeon.
Judgement: The authority acknowledged the photographs showed the work of a surgeon whose services could be obtained from the advertisers and concluded that the advertisement was acceptable.

GO BACK TO BODY LANGUAGE WEB