HairFarmer
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjudications : By Code Clause (All):
Health & Beauty ...more
Healthtec UK Ltd t/a Tower Health
Tower House
32 Musters Road
West Bridgford
Nottingham
NG2 7PL
Date: 6th August 2003
Media: National press
Sector: Health and beauty
Industry Complaint From: London
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint:
Advanced Hair Studio objected to a national press advertisement headlined "Prevent Hair Loss and regain a thicker, fuller head of hair". It stated " ... Tower Health can provide information and products from all over the world and are able to offer treatments using the latest technology and medical advancements. NO TRANSPLANTS NO SURGERY NO EXPENSIVE CONSULTATIONS Ask about the only clinically proven and approved hairloss [sic] lotion to stimulate new growth ... We can tell you about the world's first hand held laser treatment approved to regrow hair without the expense incurred by attending clinics ... Ask about our natural product range including the top selling pharmacy supplement from Scandinavia. Whatever the extent of your hair loss, we have the expertise to offer free advice on solutions that really work". It featured two photographs titled "BEFORE" and "AFTER". Underneath the photographs was text that stated "This is achievable without spending thousands of pounds". The complainants, who believed the advertisers sold only a Vitapharm product, challenged:
1. the claim "Prevent Hair Loss and regain a thicker, fuller head of hair";
2. the claim "the only clinically proven and approved hairloss lotion to stimulate new growth";
3. whether the advertisement implied that the advertised treatment had results similar to those of transplants, surgery or proper consultation;
4. the implication that the hand-held laser treatment was available from the advertisers and
5. whether hand-held laser treatment had the same effect as laser treatment available from clinics.
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, 50.1, 50.26 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
The advertisers asserted that they had withdrawn the advertisement and would consult the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Copy Advice team before placing future advertisements.
1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers explained that the claim "Prevent Hair Loss" referred to treatment with minoxidil and the claim "regain a thicker, fuller head of hair" referred to treatment with Mediko (manufactured by Vitapharm) and Nourkrin. They asserted that minoxidil was clinically proven to stimulate new growth and prevent hair loss; they believed the Authority was already aware of that. The advertisers asserted that, although they had planned to sell minoxidil, they had had no sales. They stated that future advertisements would not refer to minoxidil. The Authority noted minoxidil had been proven to retard hair loss in some men, not prevent hair loss. It considered that, because Nourkrin and Mediko had cosmetic effects only, the claim "regain a thicker, fuller head of hair" was not justified. The Authority was concerned that the claim "Prevent Hair Loss" referred to a product that the advertisers could not prove they had plans to sell. The Authority considered that both parts of the claim were not justified and welcomed the advertisers' assurance that the advertisement had been withdrawn. The Authority advised the advertisers to ensure the accuracy of all claims in future.
2. Complaint upheld
The advertisers stated that the claim referred to minoxidil; they believed the Authority was aware that minoxidil was the only clinically proven lotion to stimulate new growth. The advertisers stated that, although they had planned to sell minoxidil, they had had no sales. They stated that future advertisements would not refer to minoxidil. The Authority acknowledged that minoxidil was the only clinically proven lotion to stimulate new growth. It was concerned, however, that the claim referred to a product that the advertisers could not prove they had plans to sell. The Authority welcomed the advertisers' statement that future advertisements would not refer to minoxidil.
3. Complaint upheld
The advertisers asserted that the advertisement merely informed consumers that products were available for those who did not want expensive consultations, transplants or surgery. The Authority considered that consumers were likely to infer that the advertisers' treatments had results similar to those of transplants, surgery or proper consultation. Because the advertisers had not shown that they did, the Authority concluded that the advertisement was misleading. It welcomed the advertisers' assurance that the advertisement had been withdrawn and that they would consult the CAP Copy Advice team before placing future advertisements.
4. Complaint upheld
The advertisers asserted that the hand-held laser treatment, the Hairmax Laser Comb, used to be available to consumers but they no longer had access to stock; they stated that they directed enquiries about the hand-held laser treatment to a U.S. website. The advertisers stated that the "BEFORE" and "AFTER" photographs referred to treatment with the Laser Comb. The Authority noted the advertisers could not show that they sold the Laser Comb; it was concerned that the advertisement referred to a treatment that the advertisers did not provide. The Authority welcomed the advertisers' assurance that the advertisement had been withdrawn and told them to ensure the accuracy of future advertisements.
5. Complaint upheld
The advertisers stated that they had intended to imply that hair growth could be achieved without going to clinics, not that the hand-held laser treatment gave the same results as laser treatment available from clinics. The advertisers sent a copy of the Laser Comb Medical Device Licence issued by the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Canada and the results of a Laser Comb clinical study that had been conducted by the manufacturers; the advertisers asserted that the study showed the Laser Comb's effectiveness. The Authority considered that the advertisers' evidence did not show that the hand-held laser treatment had the same effect as laser treatment available at clinics. It was concerned, moreover, that the advertisement included claims for a treatment that the advertisers could not show that they sold. The Authority welcomed the advertisers' assurance that the advertisement had been withdrawn and that they would consult the CAP Copy Advice team before placing future advertisements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjudications : By Code Clause (All):
Health & Beauty ...more
Healthtec UK Ltd t/a Tower Health
Tower House
32 Musters Road
West Bridgford
Nottingham
NG2 7PL
Date: 6th August 2003
Media: National press
Sector: Health and beauty
Industry Complaint From: London
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint:
Advanced Hair Studio objected to a national press advertisement headlined "Prevent Hair Loss and regain a thicker, fuller head of hair". It stated " ... Tower Health can provide information and products from all over the world and are able to offer treatments using the latest technology and medical advancements. NO TRANSPLANTS NO SURGERY NO EXPENSIVE CONSULTATIONS Ask about the only clinically proven and approved hairloss [sic] lotion to stimulate new growth ... We can tell you about the world's first hand held laser treatment approved to regrow hair without the expense incurred by attending clinics ... Ask about our natural product range including the top selling pharmacy supplement from Scandinavia. Whatever the extent of your hair loss, we have the expertise to offer free advice on solutions that really work". It featured two photographs titled "BEFORE" and "AFTER". Underneath the photographs was text that stated "This is achievable without spending thousands of pounds". The complainants, who believed the advertisers sold only a Vitapharm product, challenged:
1. the claim "Prevent Hair Loss and regain a thicker, fuller head of hair";
2. the claim "the only clinically proven and approved hairloss lotion to stimulate new growth";
3. whether the advertisement implied that the advertised treatment had results similar to those of transplants, surgery or proper consultation;
4. the implication that the hand-held laser treatment was available from the advertisers and
5. whether hand-held laser treatment had the same effect as laser treatment available from clinics.
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, 50.1, 50.26 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
The advertisers asserted that they had withdrawn the advertisement and would consult the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Copy Advice team before placing future advertisements.
1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers explained that the claim "Prevent Hair Loss" referred to treatment with minoxidil and the claim "regain a thicker, fuller head of hair" referred to treatment with Mediko (manufactured by Vitapharm) and Nourkrin. They asserted that minoxidil was clinically proven to stimulate new growth and prevent hair loss; they believed the Authority was already aware of that. The advertisers asserted that, although they had planned to sell minoxidil, they had had no sales. They stated that future advertisements would not refer to minoxidil. The Authority noted minoxidil had been proven to retard hair loss in some men, not prevent hair loss. It considered that, because Nourkrin and Mediko had cosmetic effects only, the claim "regain a thicker, fuller head of hair" was not justified. The Authority was concerned that the claim "Prevent Hair Loss" referred to a product that the advertisers could not prove they had plans to sell. The Authority considered that both parts of the claim were not justified and welcomed the advertisers' assurance that the advertisement had been withdrawn. The Authority advised the advertisers to ensure the accuracy of all claims in future.
2. Complaint upheld
The advertisers stated that the claim referred to minoxidil; they believed the Authority was aware that minoxidil was the only clinically proven lotion to stimulate new growth. The advertisers stated that, although they had planned to sell minoxidil, they had had no sales. They stated that future advertisements would not refer to minoxidil. The Authority acknowledged that minoxidil was the only clinically proven lotion to stimulate new growth. It was concerned, however, that the claim referred to a product that the advertisers could not prove they had plans to sell. The Authority welcomed the advertisers' statement that future advertisements would not refer to minoxidil.
3. Complaint upheld
The advertisers asserted that the advertisement merely informed consumers that products were available for those who did not want expensive consultations, transplants or surgery. The Authority considered that consumers were likely to infer that the advertisers' treatments had results similar to those of transplants, surgery or proper consultation. Because the advertisers had not shown that they did, the Authority concluded that the advertisement was misleading. It welcomed the advertisers' assurance that the advertisement had been withdrawn and that they would consult the CAP Copy Advice team before placing future advertisements.
4. Complaint upheld
The advertisers asserted that the hand-held laser treatment, the Hairmax Laser Comb, used to be available to consumers but they no longer had access to stock; they stated that they directed enquiries about the hand-held laser treatment to a U.S. website. The advertisers stated that the "BEFORE" and "AFTER" photographs referred to treatment with the Laser Comb. The Authority noted the advertisers could not show that they sold the Laser Comb; it was concerned that the advertisement referred to a treatment that the advertisers did not provide. The Authority welcomed the advertisers' assurance that the advertisement had been withdrawn and told them to ensure the accuracy of future advertisements.
5. Complaint upheld
The advertisers stated that they had intended to imply that hair growth could be achieved without going to clinics, not that the hand-held laser treatment gave the same results as laser treatment available from clinics. The advertisers sent a copy of the Laser Comb Medical Device Licence issued by the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Canada and the results of a Laser Comb clinical study that had been conducted by the manufacturers; the advertisers asserted that the study showed the Laser Comb's effectiveness. The Authority considered that the advertisers' evidence did not show that the hand-held laser treatment had the same effect as laser treatment available at clinics. It was concerned, moreover, that the advertisement included claims for a treatment that the advertisers could not show that they sold. The Authority welcomed the advertisers' assurance that the advertisement had been withdrawn and that they would consult the CAP Copy Advice team before placing future advertisements.
Is this a joke?