Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, two Instagram posts and a Google ad for Dental Centre Turkey, a dental facilitator:
a. A website for Dental Centre Turkey, www.dentalcentreturkey.com, seen in March 2022. On the homepage, text stated, “We have the very latest technology, all of which you will find in the likes of London’s Harley Street and other high end dental clinics. If you are seeking a highly respected dental clinic with a proven track record for excellent dentistry, we can offer you a first-class experience in the hands of our highly qualified dental team […] Dental Centre Turkey has years of experience in helping patients get the best possible treatment for the best possible price by travelling to Turkey for their dental treatment. We have hundreds of reviews from our patients and in recent years we have been trusted to recreate the smiles of some well-known TV personalities which is a great addition to our expanding portfolio”.
Under the heading “About Us”, further text stated, “Browse our before and after gallery to take a look at the results achieved on a daily basis. The independent licenced VIP clinics are registered ‘Dental Centres’ fully approved and regulated by the Turkish Ministry of Health […] Every effort has been made to ensure each clinic offers patients a dental appointment unlike no other. If you are unsure of where to travel, we can guide you to the most appropriate clinic according to the treatment you are planning and the dates you are available to travel. You can either arrange your own holiday and let us know which dates you would like to see the dentist or ask us to arrange the holiday for you. It’s our job to make this easy for you – just as we have for thousands of patients across the globe […] Being the largest facilitator of dental treatment in Turkey, we are known in the industry for our quick and professional response”.
Further down the page, information about a number of different dental treatments was stated, such as “Our premium Crown selection incorporates the very latest smile design technology, enabling us to copy the design of your choosing or create”.
Under the heading “How we work”, text stated “Dental Centre Turkey has grown to be the largest facilitator of dental services in Turkey to the international community” and “Superior dental clinics in 4 stunning locations along the Mediterranean coastline. Antalya, Fethiye, Marmaris and Istanbul”.
A patient review video also featured on the website. Text on screen stated “Nathan Massey Winner of Love Island” and featured Mr Massey who said, “I’d just like to say a huge, huge thank you to the Dental Centre in Turkey. They’ve been absolutely amazing, I’m so happy with my smile. The technology here is outstanding and I would recommend to anyone to come down and get their teeth done”. A woman then appeared in the video who said, “I’d come to the Dental Centre Turkey after maybe 25 years of my teeth getting progressively worse […] It’s the best experience I’ve ever had and I’ve got the most beautiful teeth in the world […] I can only recommend this dentist wholeheartedly. Thank you so much you’ve changed my life.” Text on the screen then stated, “Cara De La Hoyde Winner of Love Island”. Ms De La Hoyde then said, “Hi guys, I would just like to say a massive thank you to the Dental Centre Turkey for my brand-new smile. It has been absolutely amazing, the technology is amazing… they have a massive computer, I saw my smile on screen before I actually got it. They can personalise it, make it exactly what you want, it’s amazing. I would recommend it to everyone.” A man then appeared in the video who said, “I would recommend anyone come to this clinic. Believe me I looked […] and this was absolutely the best choice.” A woman then appeared in the video who said, “I spent a long time on the internet looking for the right dental place, and I couldn’t be happier. They’re so friendly, they look after you from start to finish, you never feel like anything is too much effort for them.” Text then appeared on screen which stated, “Micheal Hassini TOWIE”. Mr Hassini said, “I’ve just finished having my treatment done at the Dental Centre in Turkey. I must say their efficiency and the quality of them is amazing so… out and out experience I’d give it ten out of ten”. Later on in the video another woman stated, “I came to the Dental Centre in Turkey to have some work done on my teeth …]”.
Several “Before and After” examples also featured on the website, where two images of the same person’s mouth and teeth were shown alongside each other and featured the logo “Dental Centre Turkey”.
At the bottom of the website, text stated, “HEAD OFFICE”, underneath which further text stated, “Dental Centre Turkey Ltd 2 Warren Yard Warren Park Stratford Road Wolverton Mill Milton Keynes MK12 5NW United Kingdom”, followed by the Company Number.
b. The first Instagram ad by Dental Centre Turkey, seen on 29 March 2022. The image featured two images of Anthony Kennedy’s mouth and teeth, one of which was labelled “BEFORE” and one “AFTER”. The caption stated, “It was a pleasure to assist @antgshore in achieving his dental goals. This stunning result was achieved with e.max Laminate Veneers in colour shade B1, which were artfully deployed to close the gaps between teeth while allowing a Hollywood Smile that still retains a naturalistic [sic] appearance. Treatment completed by DCT Klinik (independently owned Dental Centre in Turkey)”.
c. The second Instagram ad by Dental Centre Turkey, seen on 1 March 2022. The ad featured a video which included pictures of Megan Barton Hanson arriving at an airport, posing in front of a wall which said “Dental Centre Turkey” and during the process of selecting her veneers. The end of the video featured images of Ms Barton Hanson drinking and smiling against a backdrop which stated, “Dental Centre Turkey”. The caption stated, “It was a pleasure to assist @meganbartonhanson_ in replacing her old restorations with luminous e.max® Crowns/ Full Veneers, using the latest in digital dentistry and advanced smile design. Treatment completed by DCT Klinik II (independently owned VIP Dental Centre in Turkey). Tag someone you would like to enjoy your dental journey with [plane emoji, tree emoji, tooth emoji].
d. A paid-for Google ad, seen in March 2022. Text stated, “Dental Centre Turkey – Official Website” and “We are known in the industry for providing quality dentistry since 2005. Most visited dental clinics in Turkey. Smile makeover, Veneers, Crowns, E.max, Dct Whiite. Celebrity Smiles”.
Issue
1. The complainant, who understood that Head Office of Dental Centre Turkey was not in the UK, challenged whether the reference to a UK Head Office in ad (a) could be substantiated and that it misleadingly implied the company was based in the UK.
2. The complainant challenged whether ads (b) and (c) misleadingly implied that Dental Centre Turkey carried out dental work and that the clinics referenced in the ads were managed by Dental Centre Turkey.
3. The ASA also challenged whether ads (a) and (d) misleadingly implied that the Dental Centre Turkey was a dental centre that carried out dental work.
Response
1. Dental Centre Turkey UK Ltd t/a Dental Centre Turkey said that they believed it was made explicitly clear in the ads that all dental treatments were carried out in Turkey. They highlighted that there were numerous references and descriptions of the dental treatments being carried out in Turkey in the ads. They said that including the detail of their Head Office, which was based in the UK, would not alter a consumer’s perception of that fact, nor would a consumer likely believe that work was carried out by UK dentists because of its presence. In addition, they believed that it was common for companies to have an administrative office in the UK. By way of substantiation of their head office address, they supplied a link to Dental Centre Turkey UK’s Companies House page and a Change of Registered Office Address document. They re-iterated that they did not believe there to be any merit in that issue.
2. Dental Centre Turkey said that ads (b) and (c), and their marketing communications more widely, did not state or imply that they owned or managed the clinics. They further stated that both ads (b) and (c) the name of treatment centre was followed by the statement “independently owned VIP Dental Centre in Turkey”.
They explained that the text “DCT” was included before the name of the clinic, namely “DCT Klinik” and “DCT Klinik II”, because that was part of the registered trademark used by the respective dental clinics in Turkey. As such, they believed that it would be incorrect to refer to the clinics as anything other than their registered names. They re-iterated that Dental Centre Turkey was a separate legal company and entity to those clinics and consequently did not have any control over the names of the clinic.
Furthermore, they believed that, in order to advertise their services, it was necessary to showcase the end result of their client’s dental journey. However, they asserted that the focus of ad (c) was on the organisation of Ms Barton-Hanson’s trip to Turkey, rather than the treatment she underwent.
3. In relation to the wording of ads (a) and (d), Dental Centre Turkey believed that it was entirely appropriate for the dental treatments to be advertised in that manner as they provided a service as facilitators of dental treatment. Because of that, they explained they worked in conjunction with the clinics and that was a common practice for facilitating services. However, they believed that the ads made the distinction clear between the clinics and the facilitating service offered by Dental Centre Turkey. They re-iterated that the ads referenced who had completed the work, which they believed made clear that Dental Centre Turkey were facilitators of treatment, rather than a dental centre themselves.
Nevertheless, they said that they would be happy to amend all references to “we” and “our” from future marketing communications, in order to avoid potential confusion about who was delivering the dental treatment itself.
They further highlighted that they had taken advice from the CAP Copy Advice team. As a result of that advice, they said that they had taken further measures to ensure that their ads did not mislead consumers into thinking that they carried out dental work, and to make clear the difference between Dental Centre Turkey and DCT Kliniks.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA understood that “head office” was synonymous with the terms “headquarters” or “main office”, and as such, indicated a location where a company's management and key staff operated and oversaw overall business activities. We noted that ad (a) listed the details of a “HEAD OFFICE” in Milton Keynes, and the address explicitly stated it was in the “United Kingdom”. We acknowledged that it was commonplace for some companies to have an administrative base in the UK. However, we considered that consumers’ interpretation of an administrative base differed from that of a head office; namely, that an administrative centre indicated a degree of organisational support, whereas the term head office suggested that Dental Centre Turkey had a considerable physical presence at the listed address in Milton Keynes and that the majority of their work was carried out there. Consequently, we considered that consumers would understand that a substantial amount of work was carried out from the UK office.
We also considered that, owing to the perception of being a company with a head office in the UK, consumers would understand that the dental work advertised by Dental Centre Turkey would be subject to the standards and regulations set out by the General Dental Council. We considered the impression that Dental Centre Turkey adhered to UK dental standards was further implied by referencing Harley Street in ad (a) - for example, “we have the very latest technology, all of which you will find in the likes of London’s Harley Street”. We also noted CAP Guidance stated that clinics should not link themselves with renowned locations such as Harley Street unless they carried out consultations or surgery there.
By way of substantiation, we were provided with a link to Dental Centre Turkey’s Companies House page and a Change of Registered Office Address document, which both listed the Milton Keynes address as Dental Centre Turkey UK’s registered address. Whilst we acknowledged that the listed address was the company’s registered UK address, we understood that it was in fact the address of an accountancy and tax firm. We therefore understood that Dental Centre Turkey’s business activity was not conducted at that address and that Dental Centre Turkey’s staff did not operate at that address. Although we understood that Dental Centre Turkey made numerous references to dental work being carried out in Turkey in ad (a), we considered that did not impact upon consumers’ likely perception that there existed a substantial office presence at the address in Milton Keynes.For those reasons, we concluded that ad (a) misleadingly implied that Dental Centre Turkey had a head office in the UK and was based in the UK.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading Advertising) and
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).
2. Upheld
We understood that Dental Centre Turkey did not provide dental treatment to its customers, but instead acted as a facilitator, directing their customers to clinics with which they worked in conjunction. We further understood that those clinics were independent and were neither managed nor owned by Dental Centre Turkey.
We noted that ad (b) contained a set of before and after images, which were accompanied by a large Dental Centre Turkey logo. We considered that, because of the logo, consumers would likely understand that Dental Centre Turkey had performed the featured dental work themselves. We also noted that ad (b) stated that “it was a pleasure to assist @antgshore in achieving his dental goals”. Whilst we acknowledged the word “assist” could be interpreted as help or facilitate, we considered that in the context of the ad and in the absence of clear qualification, consumers would likely interpret the phrase to mean that Dental Centre Turkey carried out the dental work shown.
We further assessed the statement “treatment completed by DCT Klinik”. We considered that the term “DCT” could be interpreted by consumers to mean Dental Centre Turkey, implying that the clinic was managed or owned by Dental Centre Turkey. We also considered that the name of the centre was generic apart from its reference to “DCT”, which further emphasised an implied connection to Dental Centre Turkey. Moreover, we noted that the social media post did not tag the DCT Klinik as a separate entity. Whilst we acknowledged that the text “(independently owned Dental Centre in Turkey)” also featured in the caption, we considered that would likely confuse consumers and did not counteract the overriding impression that Dental Centre Turkey carried out the dental work and were affiliated to the clinics.
We noted that ad (c) contained a number of images in which Ms Barton-Hanson posed in front of a Dental Centre Turkey branded wall. We also noted that they were followed by a series of images in which Ms Barton-Hanson selected her veneers and then, after the dental work had been completed, smiling against a different Dental Centre Turkey branded backdrop. Whilst we acknowledged that at the start of ad (c) Ms Barton-Hanson was shown to arrive at an airport and use an airport transfer service, we considered that the majority of the ad focused on the dental work carried out. Therefore, we considered that because of the numerous inclusions of the Dental Centre Turkey logo, spliced alongside images of the veneer selection process and the finished result, consumers would understand that Dental Centre Turkey were involved in carrying out the dental work.
We considered that impression was furthered by the caption which stated, “It was a pleasure to assist @meganbartonhanson_ in replacing her old restorations” and “using the latest in digital dentistry and advanced smile design”. We considered that the focus of the caption was on the actual dental work itself, rather than the service offered by Dental Centre Turkey which consisted of the booking and organisation of dental appointments and travel to Turkey. We also noted that the ad referred to “DCT Klinik II”, which again used the term “DCT”, an abbreviation of Dental Centre Turkey. Furthermore, because the name of the clinic included “II”, we considered that indicated that there were numerous clinics under the “DCT Klinik” umbrella. We considered that implied homogeneity between different independent clinics and suggested the clinics were managed by the same company. We considered that consumers would understand that company to be Dental Centre Turkey, given the implicit connection between the two indicated by the ad. Again, we acknowledged that the ad referred to the clinic as being “independently owned”, but we considered that qualification contradicted the overall impression given by the ad.
For those reasons, we concluded that ads (b) and (c) misleadingly implied that Dental Centre Turkey carried out dental work and that the clinics referenced in the ads were managed by Dental Centre Turkey.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading Advertising).
3. Upheld
We understood that Dental Centre Turkey did not provide dental treatment to its customers, but instead acted as a facilitator, directing them to clinics with which they worked in conjunction. We also understood that they helped customers to arrange and plan their “dental holiday”, whereby a customer would combine cosmetic dental treatment with a tourist holiday in Turkey.
We noted that, in April 2022, CAP advised Dental Centre Turkey that there was a strong risk that their ads did not go far enough to dispel the impression that Dental Centre Turkey provided dental treatments. We understood from their response that Dental Centre Turkey took measures to clarify that they did not provide dental treatments.
However, we noted that ad (a) included numerous references to “we” and “our” in relation to dentistry; for example, “we have been trusted to recreate the smiles” and “we have the very latest technology”, which we considered created the impression that Dental Centre Turkey carried out dental work. In particular, we considered that consumers would understand the statement “our highly qualified dental team” to mean that dentists were employed by Dental Centre Turkey and that they carried out that work themselves. Moreover, Dental Centre Turkey referred to its customers as “patients”, which we considered furthered the impression that Dental Centre Turkey performed the dental work themselves, rather than acting as a facilitator.
We also assessed the patient review video included in ad (a) and noted that several of those featured in the video praised Dental Centre Turkey for the end results of the dentistry work carried out. For instance, “massive thank you to the Dental Centre Turkey for my brand-new smile”, “the technology here is outstanding” and “I’ve just finished having my treatment done at the Dental Centre in Turkey […] out and out experience I’d give it ten out of ten”. We considered that the focus of that video was on the actual dental treatment itself and did not feature any recommendations that were relevant to that of a facilitator, such as comments on their local knowledge, organisational abilities or the time saved by consumers using their service in other words. Consequently, we considered that would give consumers the impression that Dental Centre Turkey delivered dental work, rather than helping consumers to arrange dental work in Turkey. In addition, we noted that customers in the video referred to Dental Centre Turkey as a dentist, for example “I can only recommend this dentist wholeheartedly”. We considered that would solidify consumers’ understanding that Dental Centre Turkey did indeed perform dental work on their customers.
Furthermore, we noted the before and after images included in ad (a) all featured the Dental Centre Turkey logo. We considered from that presentation consumers were likely to understand that Dental Centre Turkey was responsible for carrying out the dental work which contributed to the “before and after” images. We also noted that the images were referred to as “our before and after gallery”, which we considered strengthened the perception that Dental Centre Turkey actually performed the dental work.
We acknowledged that there were several references to Dental Centre Turkey acting as a facilitator of dental treatment in the About Us section in ad (a) - for example the text “being the largest facilitator of dental treatment in Turkey”. However, we considered these qualifications were not sufficient to dispel the impression, created by the rest of the ad, that Dental Centre Turkey carried out dental work. Furthermore, those comments were also seen alongside others, such as “our premium Crown selection incorporates the very latest smile design technology”, which reaffirmed the idea that Dental Centre Turkey was a dentist clinic.
We noted that ad (d) included the text “we are known in the industry for providing quality dentistry since 2005” and “most visited dental clinics in Turkey”. We further noted that no reference was made to the fact that Dental Centre Turkey acted as a facilitator of dental treatment. In the absence of that, along with the information in the ad which actively described Dental Centre Turkey as providing treatment, we considered that consumers would understand Dental Centre Turkey actually carried out dental work. We considered that impression was reinforced by the text “most visited dental clinics in Turkey” which consumers were likely to interpret to mean that Dental Centre Turkey was itself a dental clinic, rather than a facilitator.
For those reasons, we concluded that ads (a) and (d) misleadingly implied that Dental Centre Turkey was a dental centre that carried out dental work.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading Advertising).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Dental Centre Turkey UK Ltd t/a Dental Centre Turkey to ensure that, in the absence of adequate substantiation, their ads did not misleadingly imply that they had a head office based in the UK. We also told Dental Centre Turkey UK Ltd to ensure that they did not misleadingly imply that they carried out dental work and managed the dental clinics referred to in their ads.
