Ad description
The Rodial website and an e-mail from Rodial, both seen in August 2011:
a. An ad on the Rodial website promoted a product called "body sculpture" and stated "A cult classic, body sculpture is an intensive gel that is formulated to help moisturise skin in problem areas. The fast acting formula of body sculpture is promoted when massaged onto the body used in upward movements, focusing on problem areas - thighs, bottom and upper arms ...". A testimonial on the same page stated "... these products really work and if you compare with the price of plastic surgery you'll see that they are not expensive at all ...".
b. An e-mail titled "Forget The Facelift" stated "Sculpt and firm your jawline, without the need for surgery with these easy steps! - apply liberally to the neck to strengthen & contour with age-busting ingredients peptides + calcium - smooth in upwards sweeping motions, massaging gently to encourage blood flow - to help the tone, gently pinch the area after application - repeat twice a day for tighter, younger looking skin!".
Issue
1. A complainant challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied that the products were as effective as surgery.
2. The ASA challenged whether the name "body sculpture" in ad (a) implied that the product would improve body shape.
Response
1. Rodial said the website description of "body sculpture" simply described the product as "an intensive gel that is formulated to help moisturise skin in problem areas". They said to suggest that the description implied the product was as effective as surgery was stretching the English language to a large degree.
Rodial said the testimonial showed the product user felt they were able to say that the product worked and that they could make a comparison with plastic surgery. They said there was nothing to indicate the testimonial was not a genuinely held opinion, and said it was not unreasonable to assume that that person had some minor plastic surgery in mind that could help achieve younger skin, but that that effect could be achieved by also retaining better moisture levels in the skin.
Rodial said it was stretching matters beyond reasonable boundaries to suggest the ad was comparing the product to any kind of major surgery. They said that if, however, the reference was to minor surgery, careful assessment would need to be made of what kind of minor surgery was being compared, as not all types of surgery were fully effective or good value.
Rodial also provided information on the ingredients in the two products and its uses.
2. Rodial said the name of the product was akin to, and being used as, a trademark rather than any detailed description of the product.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that ad (b) was titled "Forget the facelift", and was followed by text that stated "Sculpt and firm your jawline, without the need for surgery ..." while the testimonial in ad (a) stated "... these products really work and if you compare with the price of plastic surgery you'll see that they are not expensive at all ...". We considered those statements clearly described the products as alternatives to surgery, and implied they were as effective as surgery. While we acknowledged that the testimonial in ad (b) might have been a genuinely held opinion, we noted that we had not been provided with objective evidence to show that body sculpture was an effective alternative to surgery.
We considered that while some types of surgery might not be as effective or good value for money as others, we had not seen evidence to show that the products were comparable alternatives to any type of plastic surgery, regardless of whether that was "minor" or "major" surgery. Because we considered that the ads described the advertised products as alternatives to surgery and because we had not seen evidence that the products were as effective as surgery, we concluded the ads were misleading.
On that point the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration),
3.47
3.47
Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer.
(Endorsements and Testimonials) and
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
We noted that Rodial believed the name was being used as a trademark, but we noted that we had not seen supporting evidence to show that the name was trademarked. We also noted that we had not seen evidence that the product could work as the name implied.
We considered that the name "body sculpture" implied the product would have an impact on a user's body shape. Because we had not seen evidence that the product could do so, we concluded it was misleading.
On that point ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration),
3.47
3.47
Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer.
(Endorsements and Testimonials) and
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form.
